BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's application for being impleaded as a party in a suit for rent and eviction filed by non-petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 against non-petitioner No. 5 was rejected by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kota, South), by order dated 4-1-1918. He placed reliance on (1) in arriving at this conclusion. THE petitioner has come up in revision against this order.

(2.) FROM what can be found out from the revision petition and also the order of the court below, it can be said that the petitioner is the purchaser of the property from one Chandra Prakash son of Devi Das. Plaintiffs in the suit are also sons of Devidas by another wife. So, the real dispute appears to be between the four sons of Devidas as to who is the owner of the property and whether Chandra Prakash alone could sell the property to the present petitioner. All these matters do not arise in a suit for rent and ejectment where the only thing that has to be considered is whether the plaintiffs are the landlords of the defendant-non-petitioner. Petitioner's title does not come in anywhere in this case and he cannot be said to be a necessary party. His claim that he is the landlord of the defendant will ultimately involve the question of title Rajasthan authority cited above is fully applicable to the matter.

(3.) TWO decisions which can be said to be favourable to petitioner are, Vidya Sagar v. Kesho Kumar (10), R. Rulsi v. Hamed Bi (11 ). In Punjab and Haryana case (12), the trial court exercised its discretion in impleading a person, claiming rival title as a party to the suit for eviction, and this discretion was not interfered with by the High Court in revision.