1994 PLP 1913 (MLD)

These two civil petitions for Revisions Nos.950, 951 of 1994 of similar nature were from orders of identical nature of the trial Court passed on 13-6-1993 by which it excluded intervention by the petitioners in two civil suits pending before it on the ground that they were not necessary parties to them, Initially, revision petitions were filed in the District Court at Sheikhupura but upon their return, they were instituted in this Court. Facts were taken from the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6 Kanals, 16 Marlas 1 Sarsahi of land at Mandi Faizabad in District Sheikhupura was transferred in the name of Muhammad Bakhsh by the District Collector. Record of transfer of ownership rights in the land was not filed. Petitioners claimed that the transfer in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh was Benami and in reality, beneficial interest in the property vested equally in Muhammad Bakhsh, Aziz Din and Rahim Bakhsh. They were stated to be related to each other. All the three were dead. It was submitted that they had divided above property among them and constructed houses/shops on their respective portions. Some portions of the property were let out to the tenants also who paid rent to the persons inducting them in the premises. Petitioners in Civil Revision No.950 of 1994 were successors of Rahim Bakhsh. Petitioners in the connected Civil Revision No.951 of 1994 were successors of Aziz Din. Petitioners in Civil Revision No.950 of 1994 and instituted a civil suit for declaration and relief of injunction against respondents Nos.1 to 3 and a few others. They claimed that the property in dispute was held Benami by Muhammad Bakhsh and they as successors of Rahim Bakhsh were owners in possession of their own share in it. Presently, civil suit filed by them was posted for evidence. Petitioners in the connected civil revision had also instituted similar suit for similar reliefs. Both the suits were consolidated for a joint trial. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a civil suit against respondent No. 4 for recovery of rent arrears from him and his ejectment from the shop in his possession. Suit was based on tenancy-relationship between them and non-payment of rent by the inducted tenant. A similar suit was filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 against another tenant namely Maqbool Ahmad which was also based on tenancy relationship between the parties. Copies of plaints in the respective suits for rent-arrears and ejectment were annexed with the civil revisions. Written statements submitted on behalf of defendants in each suit were not filed with the civil revision. Nor, were these produced at the hearing. In course of trial of the above two civil suits for ejectment of tenants and recovery of rent arrears, petitioners in each case filed separate petitions under Order I, Rule 10, Civil P.0 for their joinder. It was averred that they were owners of the property in dispute and for defence of their rights in it they were required to be joined as parties to the above suits. By the impugned orders separately passed in each suit, the trial Court dismissed the petitions. Short question for decision in connected civil revisions was; whether? the petitioners could be or ought to be joined in the suits for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of tenants filed against them by persons claiming to be their landlords. The trial Court gave a negative answer and in my opinion, it was a correct reply. Petitioners had already gone to Civil Court for adjudication of their title to the property in dispute. A glance at the plaints would show that they laid no claim to tenancy of the shops in question. Petitioners gave no proof of their title to the property in dispute. It was a mere oral assertion. However, this was matter for the trial Court to express on in the suits covering a title dispute. Here the matter was fairly limited. The point at issue was the tenancy of the occupants of the shops holding under respondents Nos. 1 to

3. In Pravat Kumar Misra v. Prafullah Chandra Misra and another AIR 1977 Orissa 183, in identical circumstances, a person claiming title to the property was not allowed to be impleaded to a suit for recovery of rent arrears and eviction of the tenants. It was observed: "The suit by the petitioner is for recovery of rent and eviction of defendant No. 1 from the suit house on the allegation that defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant in that house by petitioner. If opposite-party No. 2 is allowed to be impleaded and to contest this suit, then the plaintiffs simple suit for recovery of rent from and eviction of his alleged tenant will be converted mainly into a complex title suit between the plaintiff and opposite-party No. 2, and the relief asked for in the original suit will pale into secondary importance. Apart from that consideration, opposite-party No. 2 has himself filed a title suit (Title Suit No. 16 of 1974) in the same Court claiming title to the suit house. The petitioner herein is a party in that suit. If opposite-party No. 2 is not impleaded in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974, the decision in this suit will not in any manner bind or affect the right, title or interest of opposite-party No. 2 in the suit house. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also states that in case the plaintiff gets a decree in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974, he will not, in any manner, disturb the possession of opposite-party No. 2 in the suit house, if he really is in possession of the same. Even without the said concession also, opposite-party No. 2 will not in any way be bound and or affected by the decree in Title Suit No. 10 of 1974, if he is not made a party in the said suit, and no relief is claimed against him in that suit". Similar observations were made in Uttam Gulabrao Sakhare v. Champatrao Gulabrao Gawande, AIR 1960 Bombay 238, Balwant Rai v. Lt. Gian Singh and others AIR 1978 Jammu and Kashmir

84. Upon this view, petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties the civil suits for recovery of rent arrears and eviction of tenants from the shops in question. Therefore, both the civil revisions must fail in limine and are dismissed accordingly. Before concluding, it may be noticed that three civil revisions of Identical Nature Nos. 764 to 766 of 1994 from similar orders of the trial Court were filed in this Court prior to these two civil revisions heard by me today. These were stated to be on the cause-list of my learned brother Mian Allah Nawaz, J. and were fixed for hearing on 19-3-1994. Since the parties and-subject matter were not closely similar, I preferred to proceed with the hearing of above two civil revisions for a final decision of them. About the rest, I leave for the office to look to. M.BA./M-1626/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.