Sh. Dhruv Dayal Gupta vs H.C.L. Infosolutions Ltd. And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1904 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J.

1. Smt. Satyawati Devi Aggarwal filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for being imp leaded as Party to the suit, interalia, alleging that property bearing No.M-41, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi was owned by Smt. Jwala Devi and she is her daughter. Smt. Jwala Devi who died on 23rd December 1977, left behind a Will dated 22nd December 1995 which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi as document No.54434 in Addl. Book No.III, Volume No.2542 on pages 193 to 195 on 22nd December 1995, bequeathing the said property in favor of applicant. Applicant has filed Case No.23/95 before District Judge, Delhi for grant of probate/letters of administration in respect of the said Will. Iswhwar Dayal Gupta, attorney of plaintiff is a party in said probate case and he has avoided to file objections so far. It is further stated that plaintiff alleges to have inherited the said property on the basis of a fabricated Will by Smt. Jwala Devi dated 27th October 1997. Applicant being owner of property is entitled to recover rent from the defendants-tenants to the exclusion of plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff has contested the application by filing reply, interalia, alleging that applicant could not be allowed to convert this suit filed for recovery of arrears of rent, into a suit to decide title to suit property. Defendants-tenants have already attorney the plaintiff as owner/landlord on the basis of Will dated 27th October 1997 left behind by Smt. Jawala Devi which was registered with the Sub Registrar during her lifetime. It is denied that Smt. Jwala Devi ever executed Will dated 22nd December 1995 or any such Will was registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi as alleged.

3. Present suit for recovery of Rs.13,41,925/- was filed alleging that Smt. Jwala Devi, grand mother of plaintiff was the owner of property No.M-41, Greater Kailash, Part-I and basement, ground, mezenine and first floor portions thereof were let out by her through her attorney Ishwar Dayal Gupta to M/s.H.C.L. Front Line Solution (Bombay) Ltd under a lease- deed dated 16th March 1995 also having renewal clause. During continuance of lease, the name of company was changed to M/s.H.C.L. Info Solutions Limited. It has been claimed by defendant No.2 that it has taken over the assets and liabilities of said M/s.H.C.L. Info Solutions Ltd. Smt. Jwala Devi died on 23rd December 1997 leaving behind Will dated 27th October 1997 in favor of plaintiff. Defendants paid rent up to August 1998. To recover arrears of rent for subsequent period up to February 1999 the plaintiff filed two suits against the defendants being Nos.498/98 and 43/99 before the District Judge, Delhi. Former suit was decreed on 31st July 1999 while later on 2nd June 1999. In this suit arrears of rent from March 1999 to October 1999 has been claimed.

4. In I.A. No. 7069/2000 filed by the defendants by the order dated 30th August 2000 the defendants were permitted to deposit the key of tenated property as also rent @ Rs.1,84,000/- per month with effect from 1st April 1999 till 30th July 2000 when the property was stated to have been vacated, within two weeks which order has been complied by defendants. Photostate copy of aforesaid lease- deed dated 16th March 1995 is placed at pages 13 to 19 on Part III file. Bare perusal thereof would show that basement, ground, mezenine and first floor portions of said property No.M-41 had been let out by Smt. Jawala Devi through her attorney Ishwar Dayal Gupta to defendant No.1. To be only noted that Ishwar Dayal Gupta is the son of applicant and was given in adoption to Smt. Jwala Devi and her husband Ram Swarup; that plaintiff is the son of said Ishwar Dayal Gupta. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that plaintiff claims to have inherited the said property on the basis of Will dated 27th October 1997 while applicant on the strength of Will dated 22nd December 1995 allegedly executed by Smt. Jwala Devi.

5. Sh. S.K. Bhaduri for plaintiff opposed the impleadment of applicant mainly on two grounds - (i) defendants had paid rent up to August 1998 after the death of Smt. Jwala Devi to the plaintiff attorning him as owner/landlord of the property and (ii) suits being Nos.498/98 and 43/99, wherein the applicant did not seek impleadment as defendant, filed for recovery of arrears of rent were decreed in favor of plaintiff and against defendants holding the former to be the landlord of tenanted property. In my view, the plaintiff could not take advantage of having received rent up to August 1998 as the same was realised on the strength of Will dated 27th October 1997 as is manifest from the averment made in Para 5 of the plaint which Will is alleged to be fabricated by the applicant. As regards another ground in Para No.8 of the applicant it is alleged that applicant came to know of the filing of present suit as also earlier two suits only after she received communication dated 18th July 2000 from defendant No.1 whereby it has expressed its desire to handover vacant possession of tenanted property to the rightful owner thereof. Applicant who would have inherited the said property as co-owner being one of the heirs in case Smt. Jawala Devi had died intestate and claims inheritance on the basis of Will dated 22nd December 1995, cannot be denied impleadment on the ground of two suits Nos. 498/98 and 43/99 having been decreed against the defendants holding the plaintiff as landlord of tenanted property as applicant was not a party to those suits. Decisions in Inder Lal v. Babu Lal, 1998(1) RCR 590; Evangelical Church of India v. North india Outreach Society, 1997 II AD (Delhi) 100; Sunil and Ors. v. Satyanarayan Dubey and Ors. AIR 1985 MP 199 and Pravat Kumar Misra v. Prafulla Chandra Misra and Anr., relied on behalf of plaintiff, obviously have no applicability to the facts of this case as suit property was let out to defendant No.1 by Smt. Jwala Devi and not the plaintiff. Order for release of deposited rent and delivery of key of tenanted portion is yet to be passed. In the above backdrop, the applicant deserves to be imp leaded as a defendant in the case.

6. Consequently, while allowing application, applicant is allowed to be imp leaded as defendant No.2. Written statement be filed by her within 4 weeks from today.