Delhi High Court
Satya Prakash Aggarwal & Anr. vs M/S. Oriential Building & ... on 23 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 IVAD Delhi 195, 91 (2001) DLT 265
Author: J.D.Kapoor
Bench: J Kapoor
ORDER
J.D.Kapoor, J.
IA No. 12057/2000
1. Though this application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Selection 151 CPC has been moved by defendant no.1 seeking deletion of defendants 2 and 3 from the array of the parties, the fact remains that the plaintiff has filed this suit on the ground that one Sardar Mohan Singh was inducted as a tenant in the premises way back in the year 1941 for the purpose of carrying on his sole proprietary business of sale of furniture and furnishings under the name and style of M/s. Oriental Building & Furnishing Company Limited and his tenancy was terminated during his life time and on his death defendant nos. 2 and 3 being his legal heirs came in possession of the suit premises and subsequently they converted the proprietary business into a private limited company.
2. Defendants have been imp leaded on account of their being in unauthorised occupation or possession of the premises with further allegations that they have unauthorisedly sublet, assigned or parted with possession without written consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also reserved their right to bring the proceedings for eviction of the defendants under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. There is an allegation of having raised unauthorised construction of mezzanine floor in the shop and a store room on the open space in the back portion of the plot.
3. Since this application has been moved by defendant no. 1 and not by those whose names are sought to be struck off, he has taken the plea that the premises in question along with four shops were let out to defendant no. 1 in the year 1941 by single lease deed and since then defendant no. 1 continues to be in the possession of the suit premises and using the same for commercial purpose and as such defendant nos. 2 and 3 have no concern and have been unnecessarily joined to confuse the issue as to who is the actual tenant.
4. It is not on the basis of the plea raised by defendant no. 1 that it is independent tenant in its own right alone that the names of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 are sought to be deleted. The pleadings when perused in entirety and not by bits or piecemeal. Once Mr. Mohan Singh who was inducted in the premises as tenant died and his tenancy was terminated during his life time, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 being the sons and legal heirs had become unauthorised occupants. They not only retained the possession of the premises but also continue to run the business set up their father.
5. There is also a dispute as to whether the defendant no. 1 has ceased to be a tenant in his own capacity by virtue of having converted the proprietary concern into a private limited company as these claims of defendant no. 1 have been challenged by the plaintiff.
6. According to clause 10(2) of Order 1 CPC, THE Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name if any party improperly joined, whether as the plaintiff or defendant, be struck out and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the suit, be added.
7. As is apparent from the claims and counter claims of the parties, defendant nos 2 and 3 have neither been improperly joined nor are proforma parties. Case of the plaintiff is that it was their father who was inducted in the premises though he was running the business under the sole proprietorship of M/s. Oriental Building and Furnishing Company and after his death his legal heirs viz. defendants 2 and 3 became unauthorised occupant as his tenancy was termnated during his life time. Thus the nature of dispute in these proceedings is such that cannot be adjudicated effectually and completely in the absence of defendant nos. 2 and 3.
8. The very fact that the instant application has been moved by the defendant no. 1 and not by those whose deletion is sought from the array of the parties prima shows that the claim of defendant no. 1 is not only diametrically opposite to that of the plaintiff but defendant no. 1 has no locus standi to seek deletion of defendants no. 2 and 3 from the array of parties.
9. There is no gainsaying the fact that in the absence of defendant nos. 2 and 3 the contentious questions arising from the pleadings of the parties cannot be answered.
10. Application has no merit and is dismissed.
