Nitin Kumar Gupta vs Vijay Kumar Mishra

Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and peruse the record.

The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed release application against Suresh Kumar Gupta (the second respondent) by impleading other co-sharers as proforma defendants. Suresh Kumar Gupta filed a written statement. In his written statement, there was no objection taken that the release application was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties though the need of the applicant was denied. In fact, in paragraph 16 of the written statement, it was stated that originally the tenant of the premises was one Nand Kishore, who happened to be Tau (elder brother of the father) of the defendant, and after his death the defendant became the tenant of the premises. It was however alleged that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. During the pendency of the release proceedings, an application was moved by the petitioner, who is one of the sons of Suresh Kumar Gupta, stating therein that in the premises in dispute business is being carried out in the name of Suresh Kumar Gupta and sons therefore he is a necessary party, accordingly, he should be impleaded.

By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected on the ground that no material was shown to disclose that there was a tenancy in favour of the petitioner and even otherwise it is well settled in law that proceedings could be drawn against any one of the joint tenants. In support of the aforesaid view, certain decisions were also noticed in the order passed by the court below.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has bad relations with his father therefore, to properly contest the release proceedings, his impleadment was necessary.

I have perused the record as also the application by which the impleadment was sought. The impleadment has been sought on the ground that there is business in the name and style of Suresh Kumar Gupta and sons from the premises in question and, therefore, the sons of Suresh Kumar Gupta are necessary party. The partnership deed or the constitution of the firm has not been brought on record. In the written statement the father of the petitioner has not taken any such plea and from the plea taken by him in the written statement it appears that he inherited the tenancy. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the court below that the petitioner was not a necessary party and even if he was a joint tenant, the proceedings could continue against any one of joint tenants cannot be faulted. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.