AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CHALLENGE
The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the application preferred by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 2001”) came to be allowed and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were impleaded as petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 in the proceedings.
FACTS IN BRIEF
The concise facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question since 01.09.2004 under a Rent Agreement executed by the father of respondent No.1. After inheriting the property, respondent No.1 instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioner in the year 2013 on the ground of her own use and occupation. During the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent No.1 sold the premises to respondent Nos.2 to 5, who thereafter sought their impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001. The petitioner opposed the application, inter alia, contending that the ground of personal use pleaded by the original landlord was personal to her and could not be pursued by the subsequent purchasers. The learned Rent Tribunal, however, vide order dated 29.11.2023, allowed the application and impleaded respondent Nos.2 to 5 as parties in the eviction proceedings, which order has been assailed in the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 is ex-facie contrary to law, as the subsequent purchasers cannot step into the shoes of the original landlord and continue eviction proceedings instituted on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. It is contended that the ground of own use and occupation is personal to the landlord who instituted the proceedings and, therefore, the subsequent purchasers cannot pursue the same cause without establishing an independent ground for eviction.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the answering respondents, being subsequent purchasers of the premises, have stepped into the shoes of the predecessor-in-title and are entitled to continue the eviction proceedings initiated by the erstwhile landlord. It was further submitted that the proceedings were instituted under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the provisions of Chapters II and III of the Act of 2001 being inapplicable in view of the monthly rent exceeding the prescribed threshold. Thus, neither proof of bona fide necessity nor any other ground under the said Chapters was required, and the application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 was rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court. He, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
The controversy, in its narrow compass, is as to whether the subsequent purchasers of the premises in question could have been permitted to come on record and continue the eviction proceedings which were initially instituted by respondent No.1-Smt. Vandana against the petitioner.
NATURE OF THE ORIGINAL EVICTION PROCEEDINGS
The eviction proceedings, as originally instituted, were founded principally upon two aspects. Firstly, it was pleaded that respondent No.1-landlord intended to settle at Jodhpur so as to remain with and take care of her aged mother and, therefore, required the premises for her personal and bona fide necessity. Secondly, it was pleaded that the premises had been let out for a fixed period up to 31.03.2013 and, upon expiry of the agreed term, the petitioner was liable to hand over vacant possession thereof. A further ground relating to arrears of rent was also pleaded.
During the pendency of the aforesaid eviction proceedings, respondent No.1-Smt. Vandana alienated the property in question in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 5 by executing four separate registered sale deeds. The subsequent purchasers, claiming that the interest and rights of the erstwhile landlord in the subject premises had devolved upon them, moved an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001, seeking their impleadment and permission to continue the pending proceedings. The learned Rent Tribunal, by the impugned order, allowed the said application.
SCOPE OF ORDER XXII RULE 10 CPC
There is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the nature and sustainability of the original ground of personal and bona fide necessity would necessarily require examination by the learned Rent Tribunal at the appropriate stage. The mere fact that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have purchased the property cannot, by itself, result in automatic transference of the personal necessity pleaded by the erstwhile landlord to the subsequent purchasers. The personal requirement pleaded by respondent No.1-landlord was founded upon her own circumstances, namely, her intention to settle at Jodhpur and reside with and take care of her aged mother. Such a requirement, by its very nature, is referable to the person who pleaded it. However, the aforesaid aspect cannot be confused with the limited question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition, namely, whether the subsequent purchasers could be permitted to come on record in the pending proceedings.
Order XXII Rule 10 CPC deals with cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit or proceeding. The provision contemplates that where, during the pendency of the proceedings, an interest in the subject matter is assigned, created or devolves upon another person, the proceedings may, with the leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
The underlying object of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in the light of the subsequent devolution of interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. The provision does not, however, dispense with proof of the substantive grounds upon which relief is ultimately sought. The permission to continue the proceedings is one thing; the entitlement to succeed in the eviction proceedings on a particular ground is another.
EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT SALE
In the present case, it is not in dispute that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, respondent No.1-Smt. Vandana transferred the property in question by registered sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 5. Thus, an interest in the very subject matter of the pending proceedings came to devolve upon the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the litigation. The learned Rent Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any patent illegality in permitting the subsequent purchasers to come on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001.
At the same time, the order permitting respondent Nos.2 to 5 to continue the proceedings cannot be construed as a finding that every ground pleaded by the erstwhile landlord automatically survives in favour of the subsequent purchasers. Such a conclusion would amount to prejudging the merits of the eviction petition.
PERSONAL AND BONAFIDE NECESSITY
The question as to whether the personal and bona fide necessity pleaded by Smt. Vandana continues to survive after the transfer of the property, and whether such necessity can at all be asserted by the subsequent purchasers, is a matter which shall have to be examined by the learned Rent Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and the applicable provisions of the Act of 2001.
The petitioner-tenant shall be fully entitled to urge that the original requirement pleaded by Smt. Vandana was personal to her and that, upon alienation of the property, the said cause of action does not survive in the same form. In fact, the subsequent conduct of Smt. Vandana would also be a relevant circumstance while examining the sustainability of the said ground.
If the original requirement was that she required the premises for the purpose of settling at Jodhpur and residing with her aged mother, and she thereafter alienated the very premises in question during the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Rent Tribunal shall be required to examine, in accordance with law, whether the original ground of personal and bona fide necessity continues to subsist and whether the subsequent purchasers can independently maintain such a ground.
OTHER GROUNDS OF EVICTION
The other grounds raised in the eviction petition can very well be agitated and pursued by the subsequent purchasers of the property. In the eviction petition, a ground has also been raised with regard to termination of the tenancy upon expiry of the initial lease period, besides the pleas founded upon the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
Thus, it’s an important aspect which cannot be lost sight of. The eviction proceedings were not founded exclusively upon the plea of personal and bona fide necessity. The original pleadings also contained a case with regard to the expiry/termination of the tenancy and the right of the landlord to seek recovery of possession upon cessation of the agreed tenancy, apart from the allegation of arrears of rent. A plea that the proceedings would be governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act; and that the provisions of Rent Control Act do not apply; are very well be agitated by the transferee.
The effect of expiry of the agreed term of tenancy, the consequences of termination thereof, and the question as to whether any enforceable right to seek possession accrued to the landlord upon such expiry or termination are matters which involve questions of fact and law. Such questions cannot appropriately be foreclosed merely because the property has subsequently changed hands.
If there existed an agreed term of tenancy and the tenancy stood determined in accordance with the terms governing the relationship between the parties, the legal consequences flowing therefrom would have to be examined by the learned Rent Tribunal in accordance with law. Likewise, if any amount of rent remained due and payable, the subsequent owner, subject to establishing the requisite legal foundation, may assert the rights which have devolved upon him by virtue of the transfer. The effect of such transfer, however, would depend upon the nature of the right which had accrued and the applicable provisions of law.
Thus, while the personal and bona fide necessity pleaded by the erstwhile landlord cannot be mechanically treated as the personal necessity of the subsequent purchasers, the subsequent purchasers cannot, merely for that reason, be non-suited at the threshold in respect of the other rights, if any, which have legally devolved upon them in relation to the tenanted premises and are pleaded in the suit.
IMPLEADMENT VIS-A-VIS ULTIMATE ENTITLEMENT
The learned Rent Tribunal shall, therefore, keep in view the distinction between the right of the subsequent purchasers to participate in and continue the pending proceedings and their ultimate entitlement to obtain an order of eviction. The former is a matter falling within the ambit of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001, whereas the latter shall depend upon the pleadings, evidence and proof of the respective grounds of eviction.
At the stage of considering an application for impleadment, the Court is not required to examine or adjudicate upon the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. The inquiry at this stage is confined to the question as to whether, in view of the transfer of the rights and interest in the property in question, the proposed parties are required to be brought on record so as to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the controversy involved. Once the rights and interests in the property have been transferred, the subsequent purchasers cannot be kept altogether out of the proceedings merely on a speculative idea of final decision which their impleadment may ultimately have upon the merits of the eviction petition. It is equally relevant to notice that, if the subsequent purchasers are not brought on record, the tenant may, at a later stage, raise a contention that the original landlord has ceased to be the owner or occupier of the premises and, therefore, the very foundation of the eviction proceedings no longer survives because he have lost right to have possession of the property. Such a situation would neither advance the cause of effective adjudication nor serve the ends of justice.
The question at this stage, therefore, is not as to whether the proposed parties would ultimately succeed in the proceedings or whether the grounds of eviction pleaded in the petition would stand established against them. The Court is only required to examine whether their presence on record is necessary or proper for the effective and complete adjudication of the lis. The merits of the respective claims are matters to be considered at the appropriate stage and ought not to be prejudged while deciding an application for impleadment.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the eviction claim. In particular, the learned Rent Tribunal shall independently examine whether the original ground of personal and bona fide necessity pleaded by Smt. Vandana survives after the subsequent sale of the property and, if so, to what extent; whether the subsequent purchasers can sustain any claim on the basis of their own rights arising from the transfer; whether the tenancy had expired or was otherwise validly terminated; and whether any rent remained due and payable, and so also that whether the newly impleaded party would have a right to get a decree of ejectment.
The petitioner shall remain at liberty to raise all such objections before the learned Rent Tribunal, including the objection that the personal and bona fide requirement originally pleaded by Smt. Vandana does not survive upon her having alienated the property during the pendency of the proceedings. The learned Rent Tribunal shall consider the said objection on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order impugned herein.
SCOPE OF SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and is neither appellate nor revisional. The power is intended to keep the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their jurisdiction and to ensure that the judicial function is discharged in accordance with law. Interference in exercise of such jurisdiction is warranted only where the order under challenge suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, manifest arbitrariness or such grave procedural infirmity as may occasion failure of justice. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, does not ordinarily undertake a re-appreciation of the evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. The power under Article 227 is, therefore, one of judicial restraint and is to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances.
This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction is not called upon at this stage to record a final finding upon the aforesaid disputed questions. The limited question is whether the subsequent purchasers can be brought on record so that their rights and interests arising out of the subsequent transfer may be appropriately adjudicated upon in the pending proceedings.
CONCLUSION
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the order dated 29.11.2023 whereby respondent Nos.2 to 5 have been permitted to come on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001. The impugned order is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
Needless to observe, the learned Rent Tribunal shall decide the eviction proceedings strictly on the basis of the pleadings and evidence available on record and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made herein, particularly with regard to the ultimate sustainability of the individual grounds of eviction.