SUNIL GULATI VERSUS NASEEM AHMED & ANR. 

CORAM: (Delhi High Court)
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) Eviction petition The petitioner challenges the order of the Rent Controller that dismissed his application to be impleaded as a party in an eviction petition filed by the respondent no.1, against the respondent no.2, who is the petitioner’s brother and one of the legal heirs of their deceased father – The petitioner claims to be the owner and exclusive possessor of the suit property, which is a shop and a workshop, by way of adverse possession of the evacuee property and relinquishment deeds executed by the other legal heirs of his father – He alleges that the respondent no.1 and 2 have colluded to create a false landlord-tenant relationship and seeks to join the eviction petition to protect his rights – The respondent no.1 contends that he is the landlord of the suit property and that ‘father of Petitioner’ was his tenant till his death, after which the tenancy devolved upon the respondent no.21. – He argues that the petitioner is not a necessary party in the eviction petition and that his claim of ownership is irrelevant and impermissible in the proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – The court dismisses the petition and upholds the order of the Rent Controller, holding that the petitioner cannot intervene in the eviction petition as a third person claiming ownership of the suit property and that his remedy lies elsewhere – The court relies on the settled law that one of the coowners or joint tenants can file or contest an eviction petition on behalf of the others and that the decision will be binding on all of them.

Relevant Paras:

16. The petitioner is yet to establish his status in the suit property as an owner, however, the petitioner is seeking impleadment into the eviction petition on the ground of being an LR of Sh. Madan Lal Gulati. The learned Trial Court has correctly considered that the petitioner is a joint tenant in the suit property. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to be impleaded as a defendant in an eviction petition as it is not necessary for all the tenants who are joint tenants to be arrayed as defendants in the eviction petition. The
petition filed by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2 is on the averments that they are in landlord-tenant relationship, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is impermissible in these circumstances as same cannot be adjudicated upon the present eviction petition.
17. Similar issue arose before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Anr. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla. (Dead) by LRs Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 178 it has been held as under :-
“6……. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a
suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners…”

18. The above mentioned principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in FGP Ltd. vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor and Anr. 2009(10) SCC 223.
19. In due consideration of the above laid principle of law, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party in the present eviction petition as he is trying to set up a case adverse to that of respondent no. 1 which will render his eviction petition infructuous. It is needless to say that remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere and the petitioner can bring his own suit seeking declaration of his ownership title.
20. Thus, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by learned ARC, consequently, the petition along with pending applications is dismissed leaving open the remedies of the petitioner against his brother.

To read the judgment click here 

SUNIL GULATI VERSUS NASEEM AHMAD THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT

All rights Reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)