Anuradha Krishnaprasad Seth v. Ajaykumar Krishnaprasad Seth & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Specific Relief Act s. 6
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence, the application for impleadment ought to have been allowed. The impugned order dated 21st February, 2005 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Interim Notice 661 of 2002 in R.A.D. Suit 520 of 2001 shall accordingly stand allowed by directing that the Petitioner shall…
Judgment
Ms. Meena Kshirsagar h/f Mr. S.R. Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Pandey for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 21st June, 2006. P.C. :
Rule. By consent of the learned counsel and at their request heard forthwith.
This is a dispute between a brother and a sister. The Petitioner is the sister of the First Respondent. The First Respondent has instituted a suit claiming declaration of tenancy. The Petitioner moved an application for being impleaded on the ground that under Section 5(11)(c) of the the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 the tenancy rights of the deceased father would devolve upon the Petitioner. The application was rejected by the impugned order. The Trial Judge 2 has noted that the Petitioner has also filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the ground that she had been wrongly dispossessed and that the suit will provide to her an ample opportunity to establish her rights.
There is a fundamental error in the approach of the Trial Court. In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the question of title, it is well settled, is not material and the only question is as to whether the person who applies for relief was wrongfully dispossessed within a period of six months prior to the date of institution.. Hence, the pendency of the suit filed by the Petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be a ground to deny her the relief of impleadment in the declaratory suit filed by her brother. There is clearly a dispute between the Petitioner and the First Respondent as to who among them is entitled to a devolution of the tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c). Undoubtedly, the plaintiff is dominus litis. However, having regard to the factual background of this case, it cannot be disputed that the Petitioner is in any case a proper party to the suit instituted by the First Respondent. Any adjudication in favour of the Respondent would directly affect the Petitioner, who has a claim in respect of the tenancy rights. 3
Operative part
Hence, the application for impleadment ought to have been allowed. The impugned order dated 21st February, 2005 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Interim Notice 661 of 2002 in R.A.D. Suit 520 of 2001 shall accordingly stand allowed by directing that the Petitioner shall be impleaded as a Second Defendant to the suit. The Petition is disposed of. There shall be
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Specific Relief Act — s. 6.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.