Deepak Jain vs Municipal Council, Jind and Others

Laxmi Narain Mittal, J.—Plaintiff No. 2 has filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short - "C.P.C."), assailing order dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application filed by Atul Kumar-respondent No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading him as party to the suit, which has been instituted by petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 as plaintiffs against respondents No. 1 and 2-Municipal Council and its Executive Officer as defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged notice issued by defendants for demolition of the disputed building on the ground of being unsafe. Respondent No. 3 alleged in his application that being landlord of the disputed building, wherein plaintiffs are tenants, respondent No. 3-applicant is necessary party to the suit.

Plaintiffs opposed the application filed by respondent No. 3 and denied the averments made therein.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), has allowed application filed by respondent No. 3 and has ordered his impleadment as defendant No. 3 to the suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No. 2 has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendants also issued notice to the landlord but he did not take any action against the said notice. It was also argued that the landlord is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit and therefore, he cannot be impleaded as party to the suit. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, , a judgment of this Court namely Ramesh Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumar and also on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Moti Lal Vs. Municipal Council, Pali and Others .

I have carefully considered the matter.

Admittedly, respondent No. 3 is landlord of the disputed building, in which the plaintiffs are tenants. Notices have been issued by the defendants (Municipality) for demolition of the building on the ground of being unsafe. Plaintiffs have challenged the said notices in the suit. In these circumstances, respondent No. 3, being landlord of the disputed building, is certainty proper as well as necessary party to the suit. His vital interest is also involved in the result of the suit. Therefore, respondent No. 3 has been rightly impleaded as party to the suit. Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the instant case because in all those cases, the persons seeking their impleadment, were not directly interested in the suit property, unlike respondent No. 3-landlord, who is interested in the suit building being landlord thereof. Consequently, all the aforesaid judgments are distinguishable on facts. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that respondent No. 3 has been rightly ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of revision u/s 115 C.P.C. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Civil Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stand disposed of as infructuous.