Delhi High Court
Anita Joshi vs Chhati Yadav & Ors. on 7 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 468/2012
Date of Decision: 07.09.2012
ANITA JOSHI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. F. Hasan, Adv.
Versus
CHHATI YADAV & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Surinder Singh with Mr. Ram
Awadh Yadav, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Gursharan Singh, Adv.
for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.(oral)
1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 accepts notice. With
the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard for
final disposal.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails
order dated 5th March 2012 whereby application under Order 1 Rule
10 CPC filed by respondent No. 1 Mr. Chhati Yadav, was allowed.
The respondent had filed a suit for possession and recovery of rent
against respondent No. 2 Asha Yadav alleging the latter to be her
tenant in respect of the suit premises @ Rs.2500/- per month since
CM(M) 468/2012 Page 1 of 3
the year 2002 by virtue of lease deed. Asha Yadav is the wife of
respondent No. 1/applicant Chhati Yadav. Applicant Chhati Yadav
filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading in the
suit, stating himself to be in possession of the suit premises and,
further that he has purchased the suit premises from the petitioner
i.e. the sister of his wife, vide agreement to sell dated 11.09.2003
and that he is in possession of the suit premises in his independent
rights and, not as a tenant through his wife Asha Yadav. The said
application was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge, vide the
impugned order, which is under challenge in this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff as
also respondent No. 1/applicant and respondent No. 2 Ms Asha
Yadav and on going through the records, I do not see respondent No.
1/applicant Chhati Yadav to be anyway necessary or proper party in
the instant suit, that was filed by Anita Joshi against her sister Asha
Yadav, seeking possession and recovery of rent. This is settled law
that in a suit for possession against a tenant, a claim of third person
to be added as defendant on the ground that he had the title to the
suit premises having purchased the same, was not maintainable. He
could not be added as a defendant in such a suit, as that would
change the entire nature of the suit, and further that no relief has
been claimed against him by the landlord/plaintiff. The question of
title of third person predicated on the basis of agreement to sell with
the owner cannot be investigated in the case filed by the owner
against tenant. If such a person is arrayed as a defendant, there will
CM(M) 468/2012 Page 2 of 3
be rival claims regarding ownership of the suit premises between the
owner and the third person and that cannot be given effect in the suit
filed by the owner against the tenant. In the case of J.J. Lal Pvt.
Ltd. & Others Vs. M.R. Murali and another AIR 2002 SC 1061,
the Supreme Court held that impleadment of any of the applicant in
such a case would change the complexion of the litigation and raise
such controversy as would be beyond the scope of the litigation.
The presence of the applicant, thus, is neither necessary nor proper
to enable the Court to factually and completely adjudicate upon and
settle the question in the instant suit. Further, any decision in these
proceedings would govern and bind the parties therein and the
respondent No. 1/applicant will have his remedy to establish his own
claim or title whatever, he may have in any other independent
proceedings. The impugned order suffers from material illegality
and is not sustainable as per law and is, thus, hereby set aside. The
petition stands disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2012
awanish
