Late George Westley Through Lrs ... vs Smt. Lalita
2023 Latest Caselaw 17474 MP

                                                                 1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                           CR No. 87 of 2022
                                       (LATE GEORGE WESTLEY THROUGH LRS JOHN Vs SMT. LALITA AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 18-10-2023
                                 Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the applicant- Elizabeth .
                                 Shri Sameer Anant Athawale, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Heard on I.A. No.7923/2023, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC for review and recalling of order dated 01.08.2023

passed by this Court.

(2) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the petition, applicant-Elizabeth has not been made party whereas she is necessary party, as she is in actual/sole occupation of tenanted premises and it is clear from averments made in para Nos.3, 5, 6, and 10 of I.A. No.4525/2023. As per law laid by the Apex Court in para 24 of judgment delivered in the case of Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain and another, 2018 (6) SCC 708, it is apparent that it is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the suit property, as party. Learned counsel for applicant

has also submitted that impugned order dated 01.08.2023 sought to be reviewed is completely silent on the point and it is not discussed herein as to who is occupying the tenanted premises. On above grounds, it is submitted that order dated 01.08.2023 be reviewed.

(3) Learned counsel for respondent No.1/landlord submits that even for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that applicant/petitioner is residing in tenanted premises, even then, from documents on record, it is not established that only applicant is residing in tenanted premises and it is not mentioned in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 19-10-2023 19:27:08

petition specifically that she is the sole occupant of tenanted premises, therefore, in view of para 24 of Suresh Kumar Kohli (supra), this Court has not committed any error in dismissing I.A. No.4525/2022, hence, review petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(4) I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. (5) Admittedly, address of tenanted premises is "House No.20, Scheme No.1, Gandhi Vatika Ke Saamne, Neemuch". In the present civil revision filed by the petitioner, address of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is mentioned as above. Perusal of revision petition filed by petitioner reveals that there are no averments that, in fact, petitioner and respondent No.2 are not

residing in the tenanted premises, instead, only petitioner's sister is residing and she is sole occupant of tenanted premises.

(6) In view of over all evidence on record, including discussion in foregoing paragraphs, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in para 24 of Suresh Kumar Kohli (supra), in this Court's opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 01.08.2023 sought to be reviewed. Hence, in view of above, I.A. No.7923/2023 being devoid of merits is dismissed and stands disposed of.

(7) List the matter for final hearing at motion stage in the week commencing 11.12.2023.

(8) Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE

N.R.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 19-10-2023 19:27:08