Patna High Court
Baidyanath Prasad @ Baijnath Prasad And ... vs Prasundatta Jain And Anr on 11 February, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1531 of 2017
======================================================
1. Baidyanath Prasad @ Baijnath Prasad, son of Late Yamuna Prasad
2.1. Manisha Gupta D/o of Late Draupadi Devi, Resident of Mohalla -Sahebganj,
P.O. Chhapra, P.S. Chhapra Town, District- Saran.
2.2. Anjana Kumari D/o Late Draupadi Devi, Resident of Mohalla -Sahebganj,
P.O. Chhapra, P.S. Chhapra Town, District- Saran.
3. Nitesh Kumar son of Sri Baijnath Prasad
4. Aarus Kumar
5. Kusagra Kumar Both are minor sons of Nitesh Kumar under the
guardianship of their father and natural guardian Nite All Residents of
Mohalla- Sahebganj P.O. Chhapra, P.S.- Chhapra Town, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Prasundatta Jain son of Late Puspdatta Jain, Resident of Mohalla-
Daulatganj, P.S.- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran.
2. Ravi Kumar Gupta, son of Late Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-
Baradri Katra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Satya Kirti, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Pandey, Advocate
Ms. Priya Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the respondents at the point of admission and I
intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission
itself.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
16.05.2017
passed by the learned Munsif 1 st, Chhapra in Eviction
Suit No. 15 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub
Judge allowed the petition filed by the defendant/respondent 2 nd
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1531 of 2017 dt.11-02-2025
set under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for
short 'the Code') impleading defendant/respondent 1 st set as party
to the eviction suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order is not sustainable as in a suit for eviction the only
issues to be decided are whether there exists a relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the tenant is
liable to be evicted under the provision of Bihar Building (Lease,
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'B.B.C. Act'). The
learned trial court did not consider that the petition filed by the
respondent 2nd set, who is the defendant, before the learned trial
court is completely frivolous petition and has been filed only to
linger the matter. The application was filed at highly belated stage.
Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed
the instant suit for eviction of defendant/respondent 2 nd set from
the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity under
Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act. The petitioners have purchased the
suit property from original owner by virtue of registered sale deed
for the purpose of running their business. They put the
defendant/respondent 2nd set to notice for vacating the premises
but the defendant/respondent 2nd set did not vacate the suit
property and eviction suit was filed by the petitioners. After
completion of pleadings, the evidence of the plaintiffs has started
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1531 of 2017 dt.11-02-2025
and their evidence was closed on 22.11.2014 thereafter the
defendant adduced 13 witnesses till 13.02.2017. On 20.02.2017,
the defendant/respondent 2nd set filed an application under Order 1
Rule 10(2) of the CPC for impleading the defendant/respondent
no.1 as party to the suit and after hearing the parties, said
application was allowed. Filing of the application at such belated
stage itself shows mala fide of the defendant/respondent 2nd set.
Moreover, the learned trial court did not consider the fact that the
persons sought to be impleaded is neither necessary nor proper
party and, therefore, the learned trial court committed a serious
error in passing the impugned orders. If the defendant/respondent
2nd set disputes the title of the plaintiffs/petitioners, the recourse to
him is to file a title suit and not to get a person impleaded as party
making claim about non-title of the plaintiffs/petitioners. Thus, the
learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not sustainable
and the same be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that
without any stay, the learned trial court did not proceed in the
matter and has kept it pending since 2017.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.2 vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the
petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the respondent no.2 has
been paying rent to respondent no.1 who took Rs. 3,00,000/- from
respondent no.2 for constructing the shop after demolishing it and
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1531 of 2017 dt.11-02-2025
agreed for adjustment of rent in the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Hence, respondent no.1 is a necessary party. Thus, the learned
counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties
and from perusal of record, it is apparent that the learned trial
court has passed the impugned order against the settled principles
of law. In an eviction suit there is no scope for impleading a
person at the instance of defendant who claims the said person
used to be his landlord and for this reason, he should be
impleaded. It is open for the defendant to prove that the plaintiff
claiming eviction is not his landlord and if he successful in it, that
would be the end of the matter. However, when a person who is
neither necessary nor proper party, he could not be impleaded as a
party defendant in an eviction suit. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code
is quite clear that it is only those persons whose presence before
the Court might be necessary in order to enable the Court
effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit. But in the present case, only issues
involved are whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant
between the plaintiffs and the defendant and whether the defendant
is required to vacate the premises and whether there exist any
ground for personal necessity of the plaintiffs so as to allow him to
get an order in his favour and against the defendant for vacating
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1531 of 2017 dt.11-02-2025
the suit premises. In this background, I do not think the person
sought to be impleaded has any role who is neither necessary nor a
proper party.
6. In the light of discussion made hereinbefore, the
impugned order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Munsif
1st, Chhapra in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 2012 could not be sustained
and the same is set aside.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
8. As it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the matter has not proceeded any further since
2017, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the matter since
it is an eviction suit of the year 2012 filed on the ground of
personal necessity and dispose it of at the earliest and preferably
within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production
of a copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments
to either of the parties.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
