Shri Anand Prakash & Ors. vs Shri Babu Lal & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5145 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Order delivered on: November 11, 2013

+            CM(M) No.1200/2013 & C.M. No.17528/2013 (for stay)

      SHRI ANAND PRAKASH & ORS                    ..... Petitioners
                   Through  Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Adv. with
                            Ms.Kamlakshi Singh, Adv.

                          versus

      SHRI BABU LAL & ORS                                  ..... Respondents
                    Through            Mr.Sudhanshu Batra, Sr.Adv. with
                                       Mr.Arvind Kr.Gupta, Mr.Yash
                                       Vardhan Tiwari & Mr.Shailendra
                                       Kishore Singh, Advs. for R-1.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. Respondent No.1 Babu Lal filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against Chander Bhan Gupta, respondent No.2 herein in the year 2009 in respect of property bearing No.73, Main Market, Aurobindo Marg, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-16 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises"). The leave to defend application was filed by respondent No.2 on 20th April, 2010 where certain objections were raised by respondent No.2/tenant. On 21st July, 2011, the eviction petition bearing No.E-475/09 was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition after impleading all the legal heirs of late Sh.Musaddi Lal who was also one of the tenants as per the case of respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 on 26th September, 2011 filed the fresh eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act, being

No.E-69/2011 against the respondents No.2 to 7 herein, namely Chander Bhan Gupta as well as legal representatives of late Sh.Musaddi Lal, named Manoj, Suresh, Sushila, Chandrawati @ Chandro Devi and Vidya Devi.

2. By order dated 18th May, 2013, the leave to defend application filed by respondents No.2 to 7 was allowed. The present three petitioners, namely, Anand Prakash, Sunil Kumar and Hira Lal filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as respondents in the said pending eviction petition claiming their right on two counts, namely, that the petitioners No.1 & 2 are the partners of the firm M/s Musaddi Lal Chander Bhan and also have been paying the rent in their individual capacity.

3. Reply to the said application was filed and by the impugned order dated 4th October, 2013, the application of the petitioners was dismissed. The said order has been challenged before this Court on filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not pressing the present petition on behalf of petitioner No.3 Hira Lal. His main contention is that the petitioners No.1 & 2, namely, Anand Prakash and Sunil Kumar are the sons of Sh.Chander Bhan Gupta who is the partner of M/s Musaddi Lal Chander Bhan and they have also become partners of the said firm. Thus, they are entitled to be impleaded. It is also stated at bar that the said two petitioners are operating the tenanted premises and even rent receipts are also signed by them. Therefore, in their individual capacities, they are ought to be impleaded in the said eviction petition.

5. Mr.Sudhanshu Batra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 states that the tenants in the tenanted premises were Lala Musaddi Lal and Chander Bhan. There was no tenancy at all under the

name of M/s Musaddi Lal Chander Bhan. There is not an iota of evidence produced by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court in this regard. He admits that the tenants were Chander Bhan and Musaddi Lal and therefore, the eviction petition has been rightly filed by respondent No.1 against Chander Bhan and the legal representatives of late Sh.Musaddi Lal. He argues that petitioners No.1 & 2 are not the tenants in the tenanted premises nor can they claim any independent rights as their father who is one of the tenants is still alive and is a party in the eviction proceedings. They have also wrongly claimed to be the partners in the firm, as no cogent evidence has been produced by them before the learned Trial Court in this regard. Learned Senior counsel does not dispute that the said petitioners might be sitting in the tenanted premises and rent receipts might have been signed by them. His straight and clear answer is that the tenanted premises was in the name of Musaddi Lal and Chander Bhan and not M/s Musaddi Lal Chander Bhan and, therefore, the eviction petition has rightly been filed after withdrawing the earlier eviction petition by respondent No.1.

6. The learned Trial Court while dismissing the application has given the detailed facts and dealt with the legal points in paras No.9, 10 & 11 of the impugned order dated 4th October, 2013. The relevant extracts of the said paras are read as under:-

"9. Perusal of the file reflects that respondent no.1 Sh.Chander Bhan Gupta has filed GPA dated 19.01.2011 executed by him in favour of his son Sh.Anand Prakash (present applicant) inter alia to contest the present case. Order sheet dated 07.02.2012 shows the presence of Sh.Anand Prakash son of respondent no.1. Even subsequently, order sheet dated 22.03.2013, 04.04.2013, 15.04.2013, 16.05.2013, 18.05.2013, 08.07.2013 all reflects the presence of applicant Sh.Anand Prakash.

10. Leave to defend applications in the present case was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2013 and the matter was fixed for PE on 08.07.2013 and present application for impleadment was moved on 22.08.2013. All this clearly indicates that Sh.Anand Prakash being the son of the respondent no.1 was aware of the petition right from the beginning. No document has been filed on record either by the present applicants or by any of the respondents to show the existence of any partnership firm M/s Musaddi Lal Chander Bhan. Application is silent as to when they became the partners of said alleged partnership firm. Further, law is well settled that petitioner is the dominus litis i.e. master of his case and even in the petition, the stand of the petitioner is that suit premises was given on rent to Sh.Chander Bhan Gupta and Sh.Musaddi Lal and it was a joint tenancy and after the death of Sh.Musaddi Lal, his legal heirs have been impleaded as respondents and respondent No.1 is carrying on the business under the name and style of Prakash Provision Store. It is not the case of the petitioner that he inducted either the applicants in the individual capacity or inducted the partnership firm as a tenant. In my considered opinion, there is no need to implead the applicants as party for a proper and complete adjudication of the petition. Therefore, in my considered opinion, considering the given facts and circumstance and that the petition is the dominus litis of his case, no case is made out for impleading the applicants no.1 and 2 as parties. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Amrit Kaur v/s Om Parkash Fateh Chand ltd. & Anr; (1999) 81 DLT 370 where it was held that as far as eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act were concerned, the impleadment of a third party is permissible only in exceptional cases.

11. As far as applicant no.3 Hira Lal is concerned, he claimed to be the successor/husband of Smt. Murti Devi. Murti Devi was the daughter of late Sh. Mussadi Lal who as per the petitioner was one of the joint tenant. The stand of the applicant Hira Lal is that he being the son in

law of the original tenant is entitled to be impleaded as a party. Admittedly, the children of Smt. Murti Devi has already been arrayed as respondent no. 3&4. As per section2(I)(Explanation III (b) of DRC Act and section 15 (2) (a) of Hindu Succession Act, the son in law is not entitled to succeed the tenancy. Even the stand of the respondent no. 3&4 has been that they are in legal possession although admitted not to be in physical possession of the suit shop."

7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on the record, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

8. Lastly, Mr.Sengh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also made a request that at least, the petitioners may be granted liberty to challenge the final order passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller if passed against the tenants. The said request is also opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 who states that no liberty can be sought by petitioners No.1 & 2. I agree with the submission of Mr.Batra that in case, under the law if the petitioners No.1 & 2 are entitled to challenge the same, they may challenge, however, no liberty can be granted as sought by the petitioners.

9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

10. No costs.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 11, 2013