- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bata (India) Ltd. Petitioner v. M/S. Mahendra Builders & Ors. S
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitions arise from eviction suits instituted by M/s. Mahendra Builders, claiming to be landlords, against M/s. Gadiwala, styled as the tenant, and the State Bank of India (SBI), styled as a sub-tenant. The landlord alleged that the tenant, M/s. Gadiwala, assigned tenancy rights to M/s. Adhie Enterprises, which purportedly has a joint venture with the petitioner, Bata India Ltd. Consequently, the landlord applied for impleadment of Bata India Ltd. as a party to the eviction proceeding. The trial court ordered the impleadment of the petitioner, Bata India Ltd., which led to the present writ petitions challenging that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, Bata India Ltd., can be impleaded as a necessary or proper party to the eviction proceedings based on the alleged assignment of tenancy rights and joint venture with M/s. Adhie Enterprises.
- Whether the impugned order of impleading the petitioner suffers from jurisdictional error or is an unreasonable exercise of discretion.
- Whether M/s. Adhie Enterprises should also be impleaded as a party to the eviction proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner is only providing expertise and know-how to M/s. Adhie Enterprises and is not a tenant or party with tenancy rights.
- The petitioner cannot be regarded as a necessary or proper party to the eviction proceedings in the absence of impleadment of M/s. Adhie Enterprises.
- The impugned order impleading the petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and should be set aside.
Landlord's Arguments
- The petitioner is actually in possession of the suit premises and is therefore a proper party to the eviction proceedings.
- Mesne profits are claimed against the petitioner, justifying its impleadment.
- There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
- The landlord is willing to implead M/s. Adhie Enterprises as a party to the proceedings to address the petitioner's contentions.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the plaintiff-landlord is the dominus litis (master of the suit) and has asserted that the petitioner is in possession of the suit premises. The court held that it is not the appropriate stage to examine the veracity of this claim, which must await trial. The court found no unreasonableness or perversity in the trial court's discretion to implead the petitioner as a party. It concluded that the impugned order is not vitiated by jurisdictional error. Additionally, the court allowed the landlord to implead M/s. Adhie Enterprises as a party to the eviction proceedings, directing the trial court to amend the parties accordingly and provide an opportunity to file a written statement. The court clarified that all parties' contentions remain open for determination on merits by the trial court. Consequently, the petitions challenging the impleadment order were dismissed.
Holding and Implications
The writ petitions challenging the impleadment of Bata India Ltd. as a party to the eviction proceedings are dismissed.
Leave is granted to the landlord to implead M/s. Adhie Enterprises as a party to the eviction proceedings, with directions for the trial court to allow necessary amendments and grant an opportunity for filing a written statement. The decision affirms the trial court's discretion in impleading parties based on possession and claims, without setting any new precedent. The merits of the eviction suits and the parties' contentions remain open for trial.
M.S. Sonak, J.:— Not on board. Upon mentioning taking on production Board.
2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that common issues of law and facts arises in all these petitions and therefore, they may be disposed of by a common order.
3. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the presence of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is not essential for disposal of the present petitions.
4. Rule in each of the petitions.
5. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Mr. Shyam Dewani, the learned counsel for the petitioner in each of these petitions submits that the suits which are the subject matters of these petitions were instituted by M/s. Mahendra Builders, claiming to be landlords against M/s. Gadiwala, who was styled as the tenant and the State Bank of India (SBI) which was styled as a sub-tenant.
7. Mr. Shyam Dewani, further submits that the landlord, on the alleged basis that the tenant Gadiwala has assigned tenancy rights in the suit premises to M/s. Adhie Enterprises and further, that there is some joint venture between said M/s. Adhie Enterprises and the petitioner i.e. Bata India Ltd., applied for impleadment the petitioner as party to the eviction proceeding. Mr. Dewani submits that by the impugned order, petitioner has been ordered to be impleaded as a party to the eviction proceeding. Mr. Dewani submits that the impugned order in excess of jurisdiction because the petitioner, in terms of the agreement with M/s. Adhie Enterprise, is only to provide expertise/know how relating to operation to M/s. Adhie Enterprises. He submits that in the absence of impleadment of M/s. Adhie Enterprises, or even otherwise, the petitioner, can neither be regarded as a necessary nor proper party to such proceeding. He therefore, submits that the impugned order, which is in excess of jurisdiction is required to be interfered with and set aside.
8. Mr. P.S. Dani, learned senior Advocate, for the landlord in each of these petitions submits that the petitioner is actually in possession of the suit premises and therefore, is a proper party. Further, because mesne profit are claimed, the petitioner has been impleaded as a party to the eviction proceeding. Mr. Dani submits that without prejudice, the landlord, is ready and willing to even implead M/s. Adhie Enterprises as party to the proceeding, simply to obviate any contentions now raised by the Petitioners. Mr. Dani submits that there is absolutely no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and therefore, this petitions may be dismissed.
9. In such matters, it is well settled that the plaintiff, is the dominus litis. According to the plaintiff-landlord it is the petitioner who is in possession of the suit premises. At this stage, it is not for the Courts to go into the veracity or otherwise of this position. All that, will have to await trial. However, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not even an proper party to the proceeding. There is neither any unreasonableness or perversity in exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in ordering the impleadment of the Petitioner. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the impugned order is vitiated any jurisdictional error.
10. That apart, the landlord, has now agreed to implead even M/s. Adhie Enterprises as a party to the proceedings for eviction. Accordingly, leave is granted to implead M/s. Adhie Enterprises, Partnership Firm as a party to the eviction proceeding. The necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. The Trial Court to thereafter issue notice to M/s. Adhie Enterprises and further, grant M/s. Adhie Enterprises opportunity of filing written statement.
11. At this stage, there is no question of going into merits of the matter. However, at the request of Mr. Shyam Dewani, it is clarified that all contentions of all parties to the eviction proceeding are specifically kept open for determination by the Trial Court in accordance with law on their own merits.
12. Since there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, as noted earlier, leave is granted for impleadment of M/s. Adhie Enterprises in the aforesaid terms.
13. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
Alert