Subhash Chand v. Gian Singh .

R.L Anand, J.:— This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for the following reasons as given in paras 3 and 4 of the order:—

“3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. In order to appreciate the contentions of the counsel for the parties on the present application it would first be necessary to go through the facts and the record. The instant suit has been filed by Gian Singh against the defendant Ramesh Kant for possession after ejectment of House No. 1726 Phase-V, Mohali and for recovery of rent. On his appearance, in the Court the defendant Ramesh Kant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also admitted the rate of rent, whereupon he was called upon to deposit/pay the rent to the plaintiff, on several occasions the defendant took adjournments seeking time to make the payment and subsequently on 4.11.2000, his defence was struck off and the case was fixed for arguments. It was then that this application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by one Subhash Chand who alleges himself to be a tenant in a portion of the house in dispute. It admitted by Subhash Chand applicant that he is a relative of Ramesh Kant, the present defendant. The applicant has brought on record a copy of passport, ration-card with an effort to show that he is residing in the property in dispute. Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only those persons can be added as parties whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In Sant Ram v. Abdul Haq, reported in 1971 RCR Page 192 it has been held that:

“Where relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties, all other persons who may be for the time being in occupation of suit premises will be bound by the decision that may be passed and occupants have no separate right to defend the suit.”

4. It is admitted by Subhash Chand applicant that he is a relative of the present defendants. Hence it should be inferred that the present application has been filed to stall the proceedings. Further the ration card brought on record by the applicant is issued by none other than the present defendant Ramesh Kant who is a Depot Holder. Otherwise the plaintiff is ‘dominus litus’ and he cannot be compelled to fight against a party he does not wish too. In the present case the plaintiffs seeks ejectment of defendant Ramesh Kant and his wife from the demise premises, if the present applicant was also his tenant, then I do not think anything could have prevented the plaintiff from seeking ejectment against the said applicant as well, since the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against the said applicant, hence he need not be impleaded as a party. Further more his presence is not necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. In 1996 (3) RCR Page 593 it has been held by our Hon'ble High Court that:

“Plaintiff is dominus litus. No person can be impleaded unless he is necessary or proper party to the lis to get his rights determined in the suit of another party. Necessary party is that in whose absence the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted at all whereas the proper party is that in whose absence no effective relief can be granted. If the applicant wants to get his own rights determined and decided in the suit filed by other parties, he cannot do so in the suit filed by third person and cannot be allowed to be impleaded as a party only to avoid multiplicity of litigation, or that the applicant also claims some interest in the property in dispute in the suit.”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the property in the capacity of a tenant and, therefore, he is a necessary party to the suit.

3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel submits that ration card was issued in the name of the petitioner on this address. So much so, passport was also issued to the petitioner on this very address and, therefore, he is in possession of the property.

4. I do not subscribe to the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case set up by the petitioner is that he is occupying the property in the capacity of a tenant. A question was put to the learned counsel whether any rent note was executed in favour of the petitioner, his answer was in the negative. When further enquired whether any rent receipt is in possession of the petitioner, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner is not in possession of any receipt though he has been paying the rent orally. In these circumstances, it is not established on the record that the petitioner is in possession of the property as of any right. In these circumstances, neither he is a necessary nor proper party. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

5. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Sohan Lal… v. Suraj Bhan…., 1998 (3) PLR 71 : 1998 (3) ICC 339 and Subhash Chand v. Hari Ram, 1998 (3) PLR 322. I am not in a position to follow these judgments as these are totally beyond the point.

6. No merit. Dismissed.