NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR v. Smt.Kanta & Anr.

Shri S.P.Kshirsagar, counsel for the petitioners. Shri S. D. Chopde, counsel for the respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17.10.2012. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial Court on 02/08/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. The respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the respondent No.2 for eviction and possession. The respondent No.1-plaintiff had also claimed the arrears of rent of rupees ten thousand. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding the petitioners as party defendants to the suit. It was the case of the petitioners that in a partition suit a preliminary decree was passed and it was held that the petitioners as well as the respondent No.1 had one third share in the suit property.

It was stated in the application that though wp4134.12-Order the respondent No.1 had claimed the ownership of the suit property on the basis of a will executed by Sayabai in favour of the respondent No.1 on 12/04/2007, the will could not have been acted upon unless it was proved before the trial Court. Since the petitioners claimed that they had right, title and interest in the suit property, they prayed for joining them as party defendants. After hearing the parties, the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 02/08/2012, rejected the application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent No.1 had claimed to be the landlady and had filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent to the tune of rupees ten thousand.

It is an admitted position that the respondent No.1 was one of the owners of the suit property. The definition of the word “landlord” under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is extremely wide and the suit filed by the respondent No.1 was surely tenable. The trial Court held that the suit was only for eviction and possession and the rights of the petitioners in regard to their ownership over the suit property were not affected in any manner, in the suit. If that was so, the trial Court rightly wp4134.12-Order found that it was not necessary to join the petitioners as party defendants. A necessary party is the one, without whose joinder, the Court would not be in a position to decide the suit effectively and completely. Since it was a suit for eviction and possession, the joinder of the parties to the same was surely not necessary. The trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 had also claimed the rent of rupees ten thousand and the petitioners had a share in the rent and they were necessary parties to the suit is an afterthought as this contention does not find place in the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any case, the respondent No.1 had merely sought the recovery of rent to the tune of rupees ten thousand. There is no scope for interference with the impugned order passed by the trial Court, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE