Ashwani Kumar @ Ashwani Sharma vs Tittu Bhopal

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - Ashwani Kumar challenging the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1-landlord under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading Smt. Vishnu Devi, mother of the petitioner, as respondent No.2 in the pending eviction petition, has been allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 is legally unsustainable. It is argued that the original eviction petition was filed against the present petitioner and contains no averment regarding Smt. Vishnu Devi or any tenancy in her favour. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has himself been proceeded against as the tenant and, therefore, the subsequent assertion of the landlord that the rent note dated 07.01.2000 was executed in favour of Vishnu Devi amounts to setting up an altogether new case. It is accordingly contended that the petition is bad on account of mis-joinder/non-joinder and the defect cannot be cured by invoking Order I Rule 10 CPC.

The sand of respondent No.1 – landlord, evident from the paper-book is that the tenancy is an old tenancy and the original rent note was not in his possession, when the eviction petition was instituted. The landlord's parents, who had inducted the tenant, have also since expired. According to the landlord, he subsequently came to know that the original rent note dated 07.01.2000 had been executed in favour of Smt. Vishnu Devi. It is further submitted that Ashwani Kumar is the person, who is presently running the shop, being the son of Smt. Vishnu Devi. It was, therefore, contended that both the persons are relevant to the adjudication of the dispute and that impleadment of Vishnu Devi would enable the Rent Controller to completely and effectively determine the controversy.

4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

There is no quarrel with the proposition that in an eviction proceeding the landlord has to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and the ground on which eviction is sought. Equally, the presence of a person who is neither a necessary nor a proper party cannot be ordered merely because such presence may be convenient. The test under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is whether the person sought to be added is a necessary or proper party whose presence would enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the proceedings.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524, has explained that a proper party is one whose presence, though not indispensable for passing an effective order, is necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceeding. It has further been held that the power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is discretionary and is to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

The present case has to be examined in the backdrop of the specific circumstances pleaded by the landlord in the application for impleadment. The landlord has explained that the tenancy is an old one, that the original rent note was not in his possession and that, after the death of his parents, he did not have knowledge as to in whose favour the original rent note had been executed. It was during the pendency of the proceedings that he claims to have learnt that the rent note dated 07.01.2000 had been executed in favour of Smt. Vishnu Devi.

More importantly, the landlord has not sought to disown his case against Ashwani Kumar. His specific assertion is that Ashwani Kumar is the person who has been running the shop. Thus, the case projected before the Rent Controller is not one where the landlord is simply seeking to substitute Vishnu Devi in place of Ashwani Kumar. The landlord's case, as disclosed from the application, is that Vishnu Devi was the person in whose favour the original rent note was executed, whereas Ashwani Kumar, her son, is the person presently running the shop.

Whether such occupation by Ashwani Kumar is on behalf of Vishnu Devi, whether he has acquired an independent status as tenant, whether Vishnu Devi continued to retain the tenancy, and what legal consequences flow from the rent note dated 07.01.2000 are all matters which may require adjudication on evidence. At the stage of impleadment, this Court is not required to conclusively determine these questions.

The contention of the petitioner is that there is no averment in the original eviction petition concerning Vishnu Devi undoubtedly has some substance. However, that circumstance by itself cannot result in setting aside the order of impleadment in the peculiar facts of the present case. The landlord has furnished an explanation for the omission by stating that the tenancy was very old, the original rent note was not in his possession and the identity of the person named therein came to his knowledge only during the pendency of the proceedings. The correctness of that explanation is a matter to be tested by the Rent Controller at the appropriate stage.

The Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner himself is sought to be proceeded against on the basis of his actual occupation/use of the shop, and the landlord's assertion is that Ashwani Kumar has been running the shop. Therefore, the proposed impleadment does not, at this stage, render the original proceedings wholly foreign to the petitioner. Rather, it brings before the Rent Controller that the person who, according to the landlord, is named as tenant in the original rent note, while retaining in the proceedings the person who is admittedly alleged to be presently running the premises.

The object of Order I Rule 10 CPC is not merely to prevent multiplicity of proceedings but also to ensure that the Court is being able to finally and effectively determine the real controversy before it. Where competing assertions exist regarding the identity and status of the tenant and one of the persons sought to be impleaded is the person allegedly named in the original rent note, the Court would be justified in exercising its discretion in favour of impleadment, particularly when the other person sought to be proceeded against continues to remain before the Court.

It is also significant that the impugned order does not record any final finding that Smt. Vishnu Devi is the tenant or that the petitioner is not the tenant. The learned Rent Controller has specifically observed that the findings recorded while allowing the application shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, no substantive right of the petitioner has been finally determined by the impugned order.

The apprehension that the impleadment of Vishnu Devi would enable the landlord to introduce a completely new case can also be addressed by directing that the amended pleadings, if any, be supplied to all concerned parties and that the petitioner be afforded full opportunity to file his response thereto. The impleadment by itself does not dispense with the landlord's obligation to establish his case in accordance with law.

It would also be premature at this stage to hold that the eviction petition is bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder. Non-joinder of a proper party does not by itself defeat the proceeding, and the very purpose of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is to enable the Court to cure defects in the array of parties where such addition is considered necessary for effective adjudication. The question whether the landlord ultimately succeeds in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant with either or both of the respondents is a matter for adjudication on merits.

The learned Rent Controller has exercised the discretion vested in it under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC after considering the circumstances placed before it. The discretion has been exercised for a relevant and germane purpose, namely, to enable complete adjudication of the dispute relating to the tenancy. No perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been demonstrated warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.03.2026. The present revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

18 It is, however, clarified that the impleadment of Smt. Vishnu Devi shall not be construed as a finding by this Court that she is the tenant or that the petitioner is not the tenant. The learned Rent Controller shall determine, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the status of Smt. Vishnu Devi, the status of the petitioner, the legal effect of the rent note dated 07.01.2000 and the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, uninfluenced by any observation contained in the present order.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to file his reply to the amended petition, if not already filed, and all questions arising therefrom shall be considered by the learned Rent Controller in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.