Delhi High Court
Arvinder Kaur Sethi vs Akshay Chabbra & Ors on 14 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1028/2012
Date of Decision: 14.09.2012
ARVINDER KAUR SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Niraj Jha, Adv.
versus
AKSHAY CHABBRA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the
order dated 2.6.2012 of Civil Judge, whereby the application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the petitioner seeking to be impleaded as
defendant in the suit, was dismissed.
2. The respondent No. 1 Akshay Chabra had filed a suit for
possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages
against the defendant i.e. respondent No. 2 Dr. Wellman's
Homeopathic Laboratory Limited. In the said suit, an application
was filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for
impleadment as a defendant. The application was filed on the
averment that she is the owner of the suit property, having purchased
the same by virtue of registered sale deed from Narender Chadha.
The said application came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge, vide
the impugned order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also on
perusal of the material available on record, I do not see any infirmity
or illegality in the impugned order. It is noted that a suit was filed
by the plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent as also for
mesne profits and damages against defendant Dr. Wellman's
Homeopathic Laboratory Limited (respondent No. 2). The suit was
based on the premise of the plaintiff being the owner/landlord of the
premises being Flat No. AM-4, Dilkhush Industrial Estate,
G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi. In a suit for recovery of possession by the
landlord against the tenant, the determining factor was the
relationship between the two of landlord, and tenant and there was
no question of determination of title of ownership of the suit
premises. In a suit of this nature, a third person claiming himself to
be the owner of the suit premises, cannot be permitted to be
impleaded, as that would not only create complication in the
determination of the dispute involved between the plaintiff and the
defendant, but, would involve determination of issue of title, which
is not the subject matter of the suit before the court of Civil Judge.
The determination of such a claim by a third person would take
primary position, and the actual dispute would be relegated to the
secondary one. Whether or not, the petitioner is the owner of the
suit premises on the basis of sale deed, is certainly beyond the scope
of present suit, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. It is not
that the applicant/petitioner may not have remedy based on her
claim of ownership; but, that is not available in the suit which the
plaintiff has filed against the defendant based on the premise of
tenancy. Further, another important aspect that is noticed is that the
applicant/petitioner had already filed a suit seeking declaration of
title of the suit premises, and which is, pending adjudication. It is
settled law that a party claiming a right to be impleaded, has no right
to litigate its independent claim, unconnected with the suit in
dispute. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order
of learned Civil Judge. The petition has no merit and is hereby
dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2012/akb
