Case Title: Manish versus Raj Kumar & Krishna Kumar
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7133/2022
Decided on: 16/05/2023
Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Facts of the case:
The respondent no.1 filed an original rent application under Sections 6, 9 (a) (b) (d) (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2001’) against the respondent no.2 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Churu, seeking eviction of the respondent no.2 from the rent premises (Nohra admeasuring 45 x 35 feet), situated near Railway Station, Churu (towards Western side of Lohiya Mahavidhyalaya), on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting, nuisance, as also on count of his (respondent No.1’s) reasonable and bonafide necessity in respect of the premises in question. As alleged in the eviction application, the subletting of the premises in question was done by the respondent no.2 in favour of Mahaveer Prasad (father of the present petitioner), without seeking prior consent of the landlord (respondent no.1 herein). The learned Rent Tribunal thereafter, proceeded with the trial of the case, during the course of which, statements of the respondent no.1 and his witnesses were recorded. 4.1. The petitioner upon coming to know about filing of the aforementioned eviction application by the respondent No.1, immediately moved an impleadment application on 01.03.2019 under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as party defendant in the aforesaid eviction case; whereupon, the respondent no. 1 filed reply to the said impleadment application on 01.06.2019.
As regards, the above-numbered SBCWP No.7133/2022, pertaining to the same subject matter i.e. another eviction application (in respect of other premises – Nohra admeasuring 25 x 35 feet, situated at the same location) preferred by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2 before the learned Tribunal on the very same grounds, the petitioner preferred an impleadment application therein as well, followed by filing of the reply on behalf of the respondent no.1 to the said impleadment application.
Judgement:
This Court also observes that the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC deserves to be accepted, only when the concerned person is a necessary party, in whose absence, effective adjudication of the case would not be possible; however, in the present case, the eviction litigation is going on between the respondent no.1 (original landlord) and respondent no.2 (original tenant) under the Act of 2001 before the learned Tribunal, in respect of the premises in question, let out on rent in the year 2000; the same clearly reveals the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2; the petitioner premises are situated at some different location, and thus, once he could not substantially establish that he was the sub-tenant in the premises in question, the petitioner could not be termed as a sub-tenant, so as to fall within the definition of the term ‘necessary party’.
Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Mahima Saini
