Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking to implead an additional defendant in a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The Court upheld the trial court’s view that the presence of the proposed defendant was neither necessary nor proper for the effective disposal of the suit. The High Court emphasized that the nature of the suit should not be transformed into a title suit.
Facts:
The petitioner is defending a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits. The plaintiff based the case on a registered Will executed by his late mother. He argued that after his mother’s death, he acquired the power and authority to deal with the said property and, consequently, inducted the defendant as a tenant.
During the trial, the defendant moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), requesting that another individual be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The defendant claimed that the property could only be used for the benefit and welfare of that individual, and no one else had the right to sell, transfer, or dispose of the property during her lifetime.
Issues:
Whether the presence of the proposed party was necessary or proper for the effective disposal of the eviction suit.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the Will relied upon by the plaintiff clearly indicated that the property could only be used for the benefit and welfare of the proposed party. Therefore, the proposed party should be made a party to the proceedings to ensure that her interests were adequately represented.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent contended that the suit was purely for ejectment and recovery of rent arrears, damages, and mesne profits. It was not a title suit, and therefore, there was no need to involve the proposed party in the proceedings. The respondent emphasized that a plaintiff is the Dominus litis and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is sought.
Analysis of the Law:
Order I Rule 10 CPC provides for the addition of parties if their presence is deemed necessary for effectively adjudicating the matter in controversy. The test for impleadment is whether the presence of the proposed party is necessary to resolve the core issue of the suit. In cases of eviction and possession, the primary concern is the relationship between the landlord and tenant, and the title is immaterial unless specifically in question.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to the decision in J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.R. Murali & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 98, where the Supreme Court held that a suit for eviction should not be unnecessarily complicated by converting it into a title dispute. The question of title to the property is not material in an eviction suit, and the impleadment of a party merely on account of rival title contentions is not permissible.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court observed that the suit was merely for ejectment and recovery of rent arrears, damages, and mesne profits. It was not a title suit. The defendant’s attempt to implead the proposed party was aimed at converting a simple suit for eviction into a complex title suit, which cannot be permitted under the law.
The trial court had correctly noted that the proposed defendant was not a necessary or proper party merely because there were rival contentions regarding the ownership of the suit property. The Court reiterated that the material test for impleadment is not whether the party sought to be impleaded could be a witness to a relevant fact in issue, but whether their presence is necessary for effective disposal of the suit.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that there was no merit in the petition. The presence of the proposed party was not necessary for the effective disposal of the suit, and her impleadment would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Implications:
The ruling reinforces the principle that a landlord-tenant dispute should not be turned into a title dispute by impleading parties who have no direct relevance to the primary issue at hand. This decision prevents the misuse of procedural provisions to delay or derail straightforward eviction suits.
