AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Present Civil Revision has been filed by the revisionists / defendants assailing the order dated 13.04.2026, passed by learned Additional District Judge 1st Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Small Cause Suit No.41 of 2023, “Sanjay Vyas vs. Triveni Shivhari & another”. By the said order, the application filed by the revisionists under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment of Baba Kali Kamli Wala Panchayat Kshetra as a necessary Party to the suit was rejected.
A Small Cause Suit No.41 of 2023, “Sanjay Vyas vs. Triveni Shivhari & another”, was filed by the respondent / plaintiff for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profit. The suit was filed in the month of October, 2023 and the respondent / plaintiff contended that on the basis of a written agreement dated 31.08.2012, which was entered between the revisionists and the plaintiff, the suit property / shop-in-question was rented on a monthly rent of Rs.9,000 for a period of eleven months, starting from 01.09.2012.
A copy of the written rent agreement entered between the parties is enclosed as Annexure No.2, wherein it is specified that the suit property, i.e., 9, Mukherjee Marg, Rishikesh, Dehradun, is let out to the revisionists for a period of eleven months from 01.09.2012. The rent agreement was for a period of 01.09.2012 to 31.07.2013. Admittedly, the revisionist is a signatory to the said written agreement. Another rent agreement was entered into between the revisionists and the defendant on 31.07.2014. The said rent agreement is enclosed with the Revision as Annexure No.2. As per the said rent agreement, the revisionists / defendants agreed to pay Rs.17 lakhs to the respondent / plaintiff and the suit property was rented for a period of seven years. As per the second agreement, after a period of seven years, the revisionists were required to vacate the property and the respondent was required to pay Rs.17 lakhs to the revisionists. The revisionists are signatory to the said rent agreement also. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed.
A written statement was filed by the revisionists on 08.07.2024, wherein, though the fact that rent agreement was entered into between the parties was not disputed, however, it was stated that the title of the property is with Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust, and there is a dispute of title over the property between the said Trust and the respondent / plaintiff.
Replica was filed by the respondent on 21.10.2024, wherein it was clarified that the suit property was rented to the revisionists by the respondent / plaintiff, and on the basis of the written rent agreement, there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further stated that the dispute, if any, between the respondent and the Trust had nothing to do with the relationship that exists between the revisionists and the respondent of a landlord and tenant. An evidence affidavit was filed by the respondent as PW-1 on 17.04.2025 and he was cross-examined on 23.09.2025. The case was listed for evidence of the revisionists on 31.01.2026, and on the said date, an Application No.44C was filed by the revisionists under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, wherein it was contended that Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust is a necessary party to the suit, and as such, a prayer was made for impleading the said party as a respondent to the suit.
The respondent / plaintiff filed an objection (46C) to the said Application on 17.02.2026 and the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 13.04.2026, rejected the said application filed by the revisionists. The said order dated 13.04.2026 is impugned in the present Civil Revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that as there was a title dispute between the respondent / plaintiff and the Baba Kali Kamli Wala Panchayat Kshetra Trust, as such, the said Trust was a necessary party to the suit, and the application filed by the revisionists was to be allowed, and the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the said application. He further submits that, in case, an amount of Rs.17 lakhs was said to be paid by the revisionists to the respondent, then the suit was itself not maintainable before the Judge, Small Cause Court.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that the revisionists in the written statement had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and had not disputed the fact that there exists a rent agreement between the parties. He further submits that the scope of the small cause suit is limited to the extent of deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Moreover, the revisionists had never contended that the party sought to be impleaded had ever claimed itself to be the landlord of the revisionists. The dispute, if any, though denied, between the respondent and a third party had no concern with the suit, wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent lastly submits that the revisionists had no locus to file any such application for impleading a third party to the suit, and the respondent, being the dominus litis, was at liberty to choose the parties to be impleaded in the suit and the scope of the Small Cause Court suit is beyond the scrutiny of a title dispute of the property. He thus submits that the learned trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the revisionists.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The rent agreement filed in the revision reveals that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties. In a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profit the question which the court has to consider is that as to whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and, in case, there exists such relationship, then the eviction suit is liable to succeed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das and Others vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others, 2018 (2) SCC 352, had laid down the principle which the court has to consider while allowing an application filed by a respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as under:
“11.There are some well-settled principles of law on the question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken into consideration while deciding the question which arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra:
11.1.First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (landlord) against the defendant (tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant.
11.2.Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff landlord has sought defendant tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, the eviction suit succeeds.
11.3.Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal¹.)
11.4.Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee².)
11.5.Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. (See Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue³.)
11.6.Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan4.)”
The Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated the said view in the judgment of the Nak Engineering Company Private Limited vs. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Others, 2026 (3) SCC 631.
Thus, the issue which the learned Trial Court had to consider and to decide was that as to whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and on the basis of the evidence which was available before the learned trial court, it was held that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and it was also considered that in a small causes suit, it is not necessary that the landlord is the owner of the suit property.
The learned Trial Court considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sardar Dewan Singh vs. Khanuja Finance Company 2018 (126) A.L.R. 603, and also considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das (supra) and held that Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust is not a necessary party to the suit.
This court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court that the said Trust was not a necessary party to the suit, as there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the said order.
In view of the above, the present Civil Revision fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.