Ameer Jan vs R. Gopal

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner herein had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC in S.C. No. 15315/2012. The application is rejected by the Court below by its order dated 20.01.2014 which is impugned herein.

The suit in S.C. No. 15315/2012 is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant therein claiming that the defendant is his tenant and has therefore sought for eviction of the defendant. In the pending suit, the petitioner herein has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking that he be permitted to come on record as the second defendant to the suit. In the application, he contends that he has acquired right in respect of the property in question regarding which the eviction suit has been filed under a General Power of Attorney dated 21.07.1992 executed by Sri N. Pillanna who is the father of the plaintiff Sri P. Gopal. The Court below while taking note of the said application has taken into consideration the fact that the right relating to title to the property cannot be decided in the present suit and in that circumstance, the applicant cannot be impleaded as an additional defendant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order would contend that the Court below was not justified. It is his case that Sri N. Pillanna had executed Power of Attorney and had put him in possession of the property as far back as on 21.07.1992 and therefore if his son is to exercise any right in the property at this juncture in the guise of filing an eviction suit against the defendant therein, any order being made therein would affect his right and therefore he is necessary to be heard in the suit before any judgment is passed in the said suit.

In the light of the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondents, I have perused the order impugned herein. The document on which the applicant had relied seeking to come on record is a General Power of Attorney dated 21.07.1992 said to have been executed by Sri N. Pillanna i.e., the father of the plaintiff therein. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner herein i.e., the applicant contends that he had been put in possession, to make out a right in the suit for eviction to come on record, in addition to the same, the applicant was required to produce the material to indicate that the tenant was already in possession of the premises when he was put in constructive possession. But, no such material whatsoever is produced to show attornment of tenancy. Even at this stage, the contention is that the petitioner herein is claiming specific performance of the agreement in O.S. No. 2465/2014 and the same is pending consideration.

Therefore, if at all the petitioner herein has any right, it is for him to make out a case in the said suit which he has filed and he cannot be considered as a proper or necessary party at this juncture to be impleaded in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein they contend with regard to landlord and tenant relationship. The Court below in any event was justified in rejecting the application. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for interference.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.