OMPRAKASH Vs. GAJANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS question of law in both these revision petitions is common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) BOTH the petitioners moved an applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in suits for eviction instituted by land-lord respondents vs. Tenant respondents. Learned courts below did not implead the petitioners in the suit and rejected their applications. Aggrieved with the orders of the courts below, the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petitions.

(3.) THE object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not to change the scope or character of the suit by adding new parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent claims, but simply to hold them to avoid unnecessary litigation which might otherwise become necessary. One of several co-owners can maintain an action in ejectment against a trespasser without impleading the other co-owners as parties thereto. In a suit between landlord and tenant, a third person claiming to be a co-owner of the property cannot intervene and seek to be added as a party when such a case was not even taken by the tenant. By allowing such a course to be adopted a simple suit between landlord and tenant could be converted into a suit for title between the landlord and a third person. In fact in a suit between the landlord and tenant only their rights are to be determined on the basis of contract of tenancy.