H.S. Bhankati vs Poornima Devi And Anr.
1992 Latest Caselaw 181 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Smt. Poornima Devi respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the Fertilizer Corporation of India respondent No. 2 herein under Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction from premises No. B-2/19. Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi alleging herself to be the owner landlady of the premise and Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI for short) as the tenant.

(2) In that eviction petition Shri H.S. Bhankati, petitioner herein, moved an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for being imp leaded as respondent in that petition. It was, alleged by him that actually he became tenant in the suit premises and came into possession of the same after execution of the tenancy agreement. The landlady wanted that payment of rent should be secured by some guarantor and he was working in F.C.I, and that for the satisfaction of the landlady, F.C.I, was brought into picture only for the purpose of regular payment of rent and accordingly a tripartite agreement was entered Into between him, F.C.I, and the landlady. As per the terms of this tripartite agreement all the disputes other than the payment of rent were to be settled between the landlady and the petitioner and that Fci would have no obligation regarding any dispute except to see that rent was paid regularly. In these circumstances, he alleged that he was a necessary party to the eviction proceedings and should have been imp leaded as a respondent.

(3) The said application was contested by the landlady and the Addl. Rent Controller vide his order dated 12.1.1990 dismissed that application by observing that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

(4) The application moved by the petitioner seeking leave to defend the eviction proceedings was not taken into consideration and eviction order was passed on 12.1.1990 in favor of the landlady with respect to the suit premises because Fci did not choose to contest the eviction petition and even did not file any application seeking leave to defend.

(5) Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged both these orders by filing two revision petitions Cr 226/90 and Cr 227/90. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 Cpc which provides that only a necessary or proper party may be added. Mere interest of a party in the fruits of litigation cannot be true basis of his being imp leaded as party. The object of the rule is not change the scope or character of the suit by adding a new party and to enable them to litigate their own independent claim but simply to help them to avoid unnecessary litigation which might otherwise become necessary.

(6) Keeping in view this legal proposition it has to be seen in the circumstances of the case whether the petitioner is a necessary or proper party to be added as a respondent in the eviction petition filed for his eviction from the property in dispute. It is not disputed that tenancy was created by lease deed dated 15.101979 and the petitioner was put in possession on that very date on the terms of the lease deed. A perusal of the lease deed, a photo copy of which is on the record, shows that it is tripartite agreement entered into between the landlady, Fci which is the employer of the petitioner and the petitioner. In clause 3 of the agreement it was stipulated the "all disputes, other than payment of rent between the landlady and the employee shall be 704 settled between themselves without any obligation financial or otherwise on the part of the lessee".

(7) This clause indicates that FCl only guranteed the payment of rent of these premises being the employer of the petitioner. This position stands confirmed by letter dated 6.6.89 sent by the Company Secretary Fci in which it was specifically mentioned that those premises were hired for Mr. H.S. Bhankati, Sales Manager of Fci and under the tripartite lease agreement the FCl was only responsible for paying the rent and disputes other than that have to be sorted out between the employee the petitioner, and the landlady. It does not appear to be a case where the company has taken the premises on lease and has given to one of its employees as a condition of his employment. It is on record that during this period of tenancy the petitioner was also posted for a period of two years at Madras and during that period rent was paid by the FCl to the landlady upon verification by the petitioner while for the remaining period the petitioner paid rent directly by cheques or drafts. Whatever may be the outcome of the case finally, prima facie a case is made out for impleading the petitioner as a respondent being at least a proper party. The approach of the Addl. Rent Controller is erroneous inasmuch as he has misinterpreted the terms of the tripartite agreement.

(8) I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller on 12.1.90 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner Mr. Bhankati under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code and accept the revision petition directing the landlady to implead Mr. H.S. Bhankati as respondent No. 1 In the eviction petition.

(9) The eviction order was passed on 12.1.1990 against the FCl on the ground of personal requirement. It is an uncontested order because the FCl did not choose to contest the eviction petition and even an application seeking leave to defend was not filed on behalf of Clause. The application moved by Shri HS. Bhankati filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for his impleadment as respondent No. 2 was not allowed and as such the application filed by him for leave to defend was not considered being not party to the eviction petition.

(10) As Shri Bhankati has now been ordered to be imp leaded as respondent In the eviction petition so he is entitled to be heard on his application seeking leave to defend. The uncontested eviction order passed on 12.1.1990 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the Addl. Rent Controller concerned with the direction that the application moved by Shri H.S. Bhankati seeking leave to defend should be decided after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law under Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Both the Revisions petitions Cr 226/90 and 227/90 are hereby accepted. There is no order as to costs. Record be sent back immediately. The parties are directed to appear before the Addl. Rent Controller concerned on 23rd March, 1992.