Madan Maini vs Smt Umavati & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3179 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Judgment:11.05.2012

+     CM(M) 570/2012 & CM No. 8698/2012


      MADAN MAINI                                     ..... Petitioner
                               Through    Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv.

                      versus


      SMT UMAVATI & ORS                            ..... Respondents
                   Through                None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated

30.03.2012 whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code

of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') which was

filed at the stage of final arguments had been declined. Contention of the

applicant is that he is a necessary and property parties for the

controversy in dispute and the impugned judgment declining this prayer

has committed an illegality.

2 Record shows that the present eviction has been filed by the

landlord under Section 14 (1)((b)(j) & (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act

(DRCA). The original tenant was one N.R. Maini. After his death, the

respondent namely Harish Kumar Maini (son of N.R. Maini) became a

tenant as all the other legal heirs relinquished their tenancy rights in

favour of the respondent; this is specifically averred in para 14 of the

eviction petition. Grounds under Section 14 (1)((b)(j) & (k) had been

pleaded in the eviction petition. During the progress of the case, written

statement was filed by Harish Kumar Maini wherein no dispute was

raised qua the right of any other legal representative. It was only at the

fag end of the trial i.e. at the stage of final arguments that the present

application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was sought to be filed.

Contention in this application is that Madan Maini (applicant) is also a

legal representative of deceased N.R.Maini and his right also has to be

protected; he is a necessary party; he cannot be thrown out of the

premises without being heard. Needless to state that this application was

hotly contested and it was brought to the notice of the Court that this

eviction petition is pending since the year 2005 and this application

having been filed at the fag end of the trial i.e. in August, 2011 is

nothing but one more delaying tactic on the part of the tenant to prolong

this litigation. Further contention being that even if one legal heir of the

tenant is on record, the law is well settled that other legal heirs are not

required to be brought on record. These submissions of the

respondent/landlord were noted in the right perspective.

3 Argument of the petitioner that there has been a non-joinder of the

other legal representatives of the original tenant is also an argument

without merit. The law is well settled; the legal representatives of the

deceased tenant succeed as joint tenants and a petition against one legal

representative alone is by itself maintainable. This has been upheld by a

Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (8) AD 328 Inder Pal Khanna vs.

Commander Bhupinder Singh Rekhi. This argument also does not raise

any triable issue.

4 Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code pre-supposes a situation that any

person who is 'necessary' or 'proper' party is liable to be impleaded

under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code; the addition or subtraction of that

party must throw light upon the controversy. This is clearly not so in

this case. The present applicant who is admittedly the son of N.R.Maini

(the original tenant) is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Eviction

petition has been filed in August, 2005 wherein in para 14 it has been

specifically stated that after the death of N.R. Maini, Harish Maini has

attorned to the landlord and he has come his tenant as all other legal

heirs of deceased N.R. Maini have relinquished their right in four of

Harish Maini. There had in fact been no dispute to this quarrel right up

to August, 2011 when the present application was filed by Madan Maini

only to prolong the litigation. This is only a dilatory tactic. This is also

fortified by the legal position that even if one legal representative of the

tenant is on record, it is not necessary that other legal heirs are brought

on record.

5 This petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and wastage

of its precious time. Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY          11, 2012
A