Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S K.B. Foods vs Apinder Singh Nijjer And Others on 17 September, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
123 CR-2068-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 17.09.2024
M/s K.B. FOODS .... Petitioner
VERSUS
APINDER SINGH NIJJER AND OTHERS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-9718-CII-2024 & CM-15575-CII-2024
1. Applications are allowed as prayed for.
2. Documents (Annexures P-10, P-11 and P-12) are taken on
record subject to all just exceptions. Registry to scan and tag the same at an
appropriate place.
CR-2068-2024
3. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2023
(Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Phagwara on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for impleading respondent No.1, namely, Apinder Singh
Nijjer herein as a respondent to the suit.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
petitioner herein claims itself to be a lessee under a lease deed dated
11.08.2005 (Annexure P-10) executed by the predecessor-in-interest of
123 CR-2068-2024 (O&M) -2-
respondent No.1, namely, Naib Singh. In the said lease agreement reliance
has been placed upon Clause No.5 whereby the plaintiff-petitioner herein
was given the right to sub-let the property in question. The said lease deed
was for a period of 50 years. It is to be noted that the said lease deed is an
unregistered lease deed. On the basis of the said unregistered lease deed
dated 11.08.2005 (Annexure P-10), the property in question was sub-let to
M/s Subway System India Pvt. Ltd. (SSIPL) by the plaintiff-petitioner
herein on 03.09.2015 for a period of 15 years. Vide sale deed dated
03.03.2020 (Annexure P-12) the property in question was sold by the legal
representatives of Naib Singh in favour of Apinder Singh Nijjer - respondent
No.1 - herein for valuable consideration. The sale deed (Annexure P-12)
reveals that there is no mention of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff-
petitioner herein. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff-petitioner herein has
preferred a civil suit against Apinder Singh Nijjer - respondent No.1 - for
declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner i.e. M/s K.B. Foods is the
lessee in property measuring 14 Kanals as described in the plaint therein as
also for mandatory injunction directing Apinder Singh Nijjer - respondent
No.1 - to execute a duly registered lease deed in its favour as also for
permanent injunction. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff-
petitioner against M/s Subway System India Pvt. Ltd. (SSIPL) for
possession as also for recovery of the lease money. In the said suit an
application was filed by Apinder Singh Nijjer - respondent No.1 - for being
impleaded as a party which was allowed vide the impugned order. Hence,
the present revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner.
123 CR-2068-2024 (O&M) -3-
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that
this is a contractual agreement between the lessor and the lessee i.e. the
plaintiff-petitioner herein and M/s Subway System India Pvt. Ltd. (SSIPL)
and that even though Apinder Singh Nijjer - respondent No.1 - herein had
purchased the property, he would have no right to intervene in the said suit.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi V/s Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. [2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 727] to
contend that the plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be forced to add any
person as a party to his suit and that since there is no relief claimed against
Apinder Singh Nijjer - respondent No.1 - he cannot be impleaded as a party
to the suit. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Nand Ram (D) through LRs & Ors. V/s Jagdish Prasad (D)
through LRs [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 522] it is further contended that the
lessee continues to be liable to the lessor till the possession has been actually
restored to lessor. Learned counsel has further argued that as per Section 108
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on the determination of the lease the
lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property.
6. Heard.
7. The present case is a peculiar case inasmuch as on the basis of
an unregistered lease deed dated 11.08.2005 (Annexure P-10), the plaintiff-
petitioner claims to have come into possession of the suit property for a
period of 50 years. On the basis of the said unregistered lease deed dated
11.08.2005 (Annexure P-10) the property in question was sub-let to M/s
123 CR-2068-2024 (O&M) -4-
Subway System India Pvt. Ltd. (SSIPL) by the plaintiff-petitioner for a
period of 15 years on 03.09.2015 (Annexure P-11). Simultaneously, the
plaintiff-petitioner herein has filed the suit against Apinder Singh Nijjer -
respondent No.1 - who is the real owner of the property in question and who
has now been impleaded as a party on the basis of an application moved by
him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for a declaration that the plaintiff-petitioner
is a lessee in the suit property as also for mandatory injunction directing the
defendant therein to execute a registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiff-
petitioner. Respondent No.1, who is the real owner of the property, has now
filed the present application for being impleaded as a party. On the one hand
it is an admitted case of the plaintiff-petitioner, who has filed the civil suit,
that there is no registered lease deed in its favour and infact the plaintiff-
petitioner has prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction for executing a
registered lease deed in its favour while on the other hand the present suit
has been filed for possession against the sub-lessee having sub-let the
property on the basis of an unregistered lease deed dated 11.08.2005
(Annexure P-10) in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Any decision in the
present suit adjudicating upon the validity of the lease deed 03.09.2015
(Annexure P-11) is bound to have an effect on the suit (Annexure P-6)
which has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner itself. Once the question of
the validity of the lease deed itself is to be gone into, the undisputed owner
of the property in question i.e. Apinder Singh Nijjer - respondent No.1 -
herein would be a necessary party. The judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner in the case of Mohamed Hussain Gulam
123 CR-2068-2024 (O&M) -5-
Ali Shariffi (supra) would not come to his aid as in the said case it has been
held that a party who is necessary and without whose presence neither the
suit can proceed nor the relief claimed can be granted, can only be allowed
to be impleaded as a party. In the present case as noticed above the presence
of respondent No.1, namely, Apinder Singh Nijjer, would be necessary as
the adjudication would be on the validity and terms and conditions of the
lease deed 03.09.2015 (Annexure P-11) based on clause 5 of the
unregistered lease deed dated 11.08.2005 (Annexure P-10) for a period of 50
years. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-
petitioner in the case of Nand Ram (D) through LRs & Ors. (supra) would
also not come to his aid as there is no quarrel with the proposition of law,
however, the said judgment is totally distinguishable on facts.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
9. It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be
treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
17.09.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
