# Jagdish Prasad v. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 608
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-15
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3791 of 2025
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-prasad-v-pandit-ram-shanker-mishra-trust-52707
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Rahul Sahai

Issue for Consideration
Whether in tenancy dispute the petitioner is
having no right to raise any title dispute and
issue of impleadment of any person coupled
with this fact that alleged aggrieved person
have never came up before the Court for filing
impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10
of CPC

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908-Order I
Rule 10; The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227; The Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act,1887-Section 15- SCC suit has
been filed by the landlord against the
tenant in which tenancy is admitted in
written submission without any dispute.
Further lease deed dated 23.2.2011 is
executed, which is time bound lease
subject to further renewal and only
limited rights have been given to lessee,
therefore, in title dispute lessee would not
be necessary party. In SCC Suit rights of
third party is affected in tenancy dispute.
Further in case right of any third party is
affected, they are having full right to file
any application under Order I Rule 10 CPC
for which there is no legal obligation upon
the
petitioner-defendant
to
file
such
application on their behalf. (E-15)

Held- that filing of proceedings under the PSCC
1887 are contained under Section 15 of the
PSCC Act read with the II Schedule and
interpretation thereof would lead to a conclusion
that it is primarily limited to disputes between
lessor and lessee for rent and eviction beyond
that nothing can be seen and same has also
been concluded in paragraph 38 of the
judgment, therefore, this Court is of the view
that such impleadment application in light of
facts hereinabove cannot be entertained in SCC
Suit.
(Para 30 & 34)

Case Law Cited
10 All. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
609
State of U.P. vs. 14th Addl. District Judge, Agra
and others reported in 2001 AIHC 3396 and
Ambica Prasad vs. Mohd Alam and another
reported in (2015) 13 SCC 13; Prakash Chand
vs. Arjun Das and another reported in 2011 AIR
CC 561; Bhim Sen Wadhwa vs. Om Prakash
Barra and others reported in 2010 SCC Online
AII 980; Dr. Shyam Chandra Srivastava vs.
Estate of Padmasri Smt. Savitri Sahni reported
in 2010 SCC Online AII 855; Shobhit Nigam Vs.
Smt. Batulan reported in 2017 (1) AWC 1082;
Jeet Kaur and others vs. Balalji Builders and
others reported in 2001(2) ARC 98; Kanak Lata
Das and others vs. Naba Kumar Das and others
reported in AIR 2018 SC 682.

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908; The
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Order 1 Rule 10; Sec 15 PSCC; limited to
disputes between lessor and lessee; affected
party has right to file any application under
Order I Rule 10 CPC

Case Arising From
Order dated 1.3.2025 passed by the ADJ, Court
No.26, Agra in SCCR No.47 of 2024.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishabh Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rahul Sahai

## Text

_Characters 0–39,783 of 45,621. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39783 for what follows._

608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
23.08.2011, whereas the cross-objection
was filed belatedly on 22.03.2021. As such,
the
claimants/cross-objectors
are
not
entitled to get any interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation awarded by this
Court for the period 24.08.2011 till
22.03.2021. If any amount of compensation
has already been paid to the claimants, the
same shall be adjusted by the Tribunal.

12. Since the minor children of the
deceased have now attained majority, the
amount of enhanced compensation awarded
by this Court need not be deposited in fixed
deposits. The Tribunal shall be at liberty to
disburse
the
enhanced
amount
of
compensation in favour of the dependents
of the deceased in accordance with law.

13. The appellant insurance company
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
of
compensation
before
the
tribunal
concerned, within two months.

14. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.

15. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 608
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3791 of 2025

Jagdish Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rishabh Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Rahul Sahai

Issue for Consideration
Whether in tenancy dispute the petitioner is
having no right to raise any title dispute and
issue of impleadment of any person coupled
with this fact that alleged aggrieved person
have never came up before the Court for filing
impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10
of CPC

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908-Order I
Rule 10; The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227; The Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act,1887-Section 15- SCC suit has
been filed by the landlord against the
tenant in which tenancy is admitted in
written submission without any dispute.
Further lease deed dated 23.2.2011 is
executed, which is time bound lease
subject to further renewal and only
limited rights have been given to lessee,
therefore, in title dispute lessee would not
be necessary party. In SCC Suit rights of
third party is affected in tenancy dispute.
Further in case right of any third party is
affected, they are having full right to file
any application under Order I Rule 10 CPC
for which there is no legal obligation upon
the
petitioner-defendant
to
file
such
application on their behalf. (E-15)

Held- that filing of proceedings under the PSCC
1887 are contained under Section 15 of the
PSCC Act read with the II Schedule and
interpretation thereof would lead to a conclusion
that it is primarily limited to disputes between
lessor and lessee for rent and eviction beyond
that nothing can be seen and same has also
been concluded in paragraph 38 of the
judgment, therefore, this Court is of the view
that such impleadment application in light of
facts hereinabove cannot be entertained in SCC
Suit.
(Para 30 & 34)

Case Law Cited
10 All. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
609
State of U.P. vs. 14th Addl. District Judge, Agra
and others reported in 2001 AIHC 3396 and
Ambica Prasad vs. Mohd Alam and another
reported in (2015) 13 SCC 13; Prakash Chand
vs. Arjun Das and another reported in 2011 AIR
CC 561; Bhim Sen Wadhwa vs. Om Prakash
Barra and others reported in 2010 SCC Online
AII 980; Dr. Shyam Chandra Srivastava vs.
Estate of Padmasri Smt. Savitri Sahni reported
in 2010 SCC Online AII 855; Shobhit Nigam Vs.
Smt. Batulan reported in 2017 (1) AWC 1082;
Jeet Kaur and others vs. Balalji Builders and
others reported in 2001(2) ARC 98; Kanak Lata
Das and others vs. Naba Kumar Das and others
reported in AIR 2018 SC 682.

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure-1908; The
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Order 1 Rule 10; Sec 15 PSCC; limited to
disputes between lessor and lessee; affected
party has right to file any application under
Order I Rule 10 CPC

Case Arising From
Order dated 1.3.2025 passed by the ADJ, Court
No.26, Agra in SCCR No.47 of 2024.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishabh Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rahul Sahai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul
Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 1.3.2025
passed by the ADJ, Court No.26, Agra in
SCCR No.47 of 2024.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
earlier SCC Suit No. 61 of 2021 was
instituted
by
the
respondent/plaintiff
seeking decree of eviction and recovery of
arrears
of
rent.
Thereafter,
written
Statement has also been filed by the
petitioner-defendant with the specific plea
about the execution of lease deed dated
23.2.2011 in favour of Shri S.K. Agarwal
and two others. Petitioner-defendant has
filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of
CPC on 14.12.2021 to implead the lessee of
the respondent-plaintiff, which was allowed
vide order dated 6.4.2024. Against that,
plaintiff-respondent has preferred SCC
Revision No. 47 of 2024, which was
allowed vide order dated 1.3.2025 and
matter was remanded back to decide the
matter afresh. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that between the petitionerdefendant and respondent-plaintiff, SCC
Suit No. 61 of 2021 is pending. Petitionerdefendant is tenant and prior to institution
of suit, lease deed dated 23.2.2011 was
executed by the plaintiff-respondent in
favour of the certain persons, having no
right for cancellation of lease and further
all powers are given to lessee, transferees
with regard to construction, repairing etc.
In paragraph 3 of the lease deed dated
23.2.2011, it is stated that the property in
question is very old and dilapidated
condition,
therefore,
repairing/reconstruction
is
necessary.
Lessee-second party has right to reconstruct
all the buildings on his own expenses and
also obtain all necessary permission for
sanction
of
map
from
concerned
Departments. They have also given right to
deposit and receive any amount on behalf
of lessor-first party. In paragraph 4 of the
lease deed, it is further stated that after
reconstruction, rent will be payable at the
rate of Rs.3 per square foot per month and
further the first party will execute another
long term lease (more than 90 years) in
favour of second party or any other persons
nominated by him. Right to take possession
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from all tenant have also given to lesseesecond party. Lessee-second party will be
liable to pay all Government, Semi
Government taxes, Future Taxes and may
also obtain electricity connection in their
name. In fact, this lease deed is only for the
sake of name, otherwise it is transfer of
property by misusing the process of law
and this lease deed may be termed as sale
deed. Therefore, lessees are necessary party
and must have been impleaded in original
suit as defendant.

5. He next submitted that to implead
them, petitioner defendant has moved an
application under 1 Rule 10 of CPC dated
14.12.2021, which was allowed vide order
dated 6.4.2024. Against that plaintiffdefendant respondent no.1 preferred SCC
Revision No. 47 of 2024, which was
allowed vide order dated 1.3.2025 and
further matter was remanded back to
Original Court to decide the matter afresh
in light of observation made by the
Revisional Court.

6. He further submitted that without
appreciating the facts of the case, remand
order has been passed, which is absolutely
bad in law. In fact once the right has been
transferred to lesse-second party, they
became necessary party. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court as well as Apex
Court in the cases State of U.P. vs. 14th
Addl. District Judge, Agra and others
reported in 2001 AIHC 3396 and
Ambica Prasad vs. Mohd Alam and
another reported in (2015) 13 SCC 13.

7. He next submitted that once the
lessee became the actual title holder, they
are necessary party to be heard while
deciding the SCC Suit. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance upon
judgment of this Court in the matter of of
Prakash Chand vs. Arjun Das and
another reported in 2011 AIR CC 561.

8. He further argued that law is settled
that once the interest of a party is in
question, he must have been made party
and heard prior to passing of order. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Bhim Sen Wadhwa vs. Om
Prakash Barra and others reported in
2010 SCC Online AII 980 and Dr.
Shyam Chandra Srivastava vs. Estate of
Padmasri Smt. Savitri Sahni reported in
2010 SCC Online AII 855.

9. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for
the respondent submitted that the crux of
the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is totally based upon the
judgment of State of U.P. vs. 14th Addl.
District Judge, Agra and others (Supra)
and in that case, lease was perpetual lease
with transferees along with each and every
right where in the present case lease deed is
conditional.
He
further
pointed
that
paragraph 1 of the lease deed clearly says
that it is for 29 years & 11 months meaning
thereby that it is time bound lease. In case,
same is not extended, first party shall
regain all the rights. Further, paragraph 7 of
the lease deed says that for any legal action,
responsibility lies upon the first party trust
and only expenses is entrusted upon the
second party. It clarifies that to sue right
rest with the first party that confirms that
ownership has not been transferred. Apart
that in paragraph 8 of the lease deed, there
is instruction for second party not to sell
the property till the reconstruction and vice
versa also. Here again absolute restriction
has been imposed upon the second party.
He firmly submitted that lease deed in
question in the State of U.P., (Supra) is
10 All. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
611
entirely different from present lease,
therefore, it cannot said to be sale deed in
light of so many conditions imposed
therein and would only be a lease deed.
Therefore, this judgment would not come
in the rescue of the petitioner.

10. He next submitted that Court may
not proceed to test the title of the parties in
a dispute between the landlord and tenant
in SCC Suit. In support of his contention,
he has placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Shobhit Nigam
Vs. Smt. Batulan reported in 2017 (1)
AWC 1082.

11. He further submitted that in his
written statement, petitioner-defendant has
accepted that he is tenant, therefore, SCC
Court may confine to tenancy dispute and
petitioner is having no right to raise any
title dispute and issue of impleadment of
any person coupled with this fact that
alleged aggrieved person have never came
up before the Court for filing impleadment
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
He reiterated that in case any right of
lessees is affected, they are at liberty to
approach the Court at any time for that
neither applicant is having right nor
authorized
to
file
the
impleadment
application. In support of this contention,
he has placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Jeet Kaur and
others vs. Balalji Builders and others
reported in 2001(2) ARC 98 and followed
in Kanak Lata Das and others vs. Naba
Kumar Das and others reported in AIR
2018 SC 682.

12. He further submitted that judgment
of this Court in the matter of Prakash
Chandra (Supra) relied by the petitioner
is based upon the peculiar facts and further
Court has observed that tenant had colluded
with the third party and not laid down any
law, therefore, it is not applicable in the
present case.

13. Further, he distinguished the
judgment of Bhimsen Wadhwa (supra)
and submitted that there in lease deed, right
to prosecute the suit and right to recover
the arrears of rent etc has been transferred
and interest of second party was involved,
which is missing in the present case as the
first party is having full right for
prosecution.
Therefore,
this
judgment
would also not come into the rescue of
learned counsel for the petitioner.

14. He submitted that petitioner has
relied the upon judgment of Apex Court in
the case Dr. Shyam Chandra Srivastava
(Supra), which is arisen out of a re gular
suit with regard to dispute pertaining to will
deed, therefore, this judgment is not
applicable in the present case.

15. In the judgment of Ambica
Prasad (Supra), he submitted that Section
109 of T.P. Act itself clear that this would
be applicable in the absence of a contract to
the contrary, shall possess all the rights, but
so far as present lease is concerned, there is
specific
contract
that
all
rights
of
prosecution lies with first party, therefore,
this judgment would not be applicable in
the present case.

16. In the rejoinder argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
paragraph 3 & 6 of the lease, it is
apparently clear that sale deed is in the
shape of lease deed for the reason that all
construction right has been given to the
second party. Except the part of office,
possession is with the old tenants for which
second party is given right to obtain
physical possession from the legal heirs
and tenants.
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. He also pointed out that judgment
of Kanak Lata Das and Jeet Kaur
(Supra) relied by learned counsel for the
respondent is about the title dispute,
therefore, this would not be applicable in
the present matter.

18. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record as well as judgments relied upon.

19. The main crux of the argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner is based
upon the judgment of Apex Court in the
case of State of U.P. vs. 14th Additional
District Judge (Supra), therefore, relevant
paragraph of the said judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:-

"9. The argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt
Bharatpur Royal Family Religious and
Ceremonial Trust was the owner of the
property. However, the trust has executed a
lease deed of the property in favour of the
respondent No. 3. which is a Sahkari Awas
Samiti, the copy of the lease deed has been
filed, which is Anncxure-8 to the petition.
This is a permanent lease with all rights of
enjoyment of the property which are
available to any owner of property
including the right to enjoy the same,
transfer, lease and also right of demolition
and reconstruction of property in dispute
and to deal with the property as the lessee
likes. A sum of Rs. ten lacs was obtained in
advance and the nominal lessee rent has
been fixed as Rs. 250 per year. It is
contended that conditions of this lease
show that for all practical purposes, it was
an out and out sale. That the court below
has erred in not accepting it as sale, in
view of the definition of sale and lease, as
given in the Transfer of Property Act. 10. It
is no doubt aiso true that according to the
definitions given in Transfer of Property
Act, the lease and sale are totally two
different kind oftransfers. The sale is
exchange of ownership. The lease is only
transfer of a right to enjoy the property.
However,
the
material
circumstances
cannot be overlooked, which show that in
fact it is a sale. This deed was executed
with intention to defeat the provisions of
law. The trust property cannot be sold by
any person and, therefore, this deed was
executed in the form of lease deed which as
per terms of transfer is in fact out and out
sale. No rights have been reserved by the
lessor except that he will get a meagre sum
of Rs. 250 per year and can never get the
property. There was no right to terminate
the lease. Even the lessee have been given
the right to demolish and to reconstruct the
building. Therefore, in fact, it is out and out
sale deed. The lease deed has been
executed to defeat the provisions of law as
the property of trust cannot be sold."

20. I have perused the lease deed as
well as judgement relied hereinabove. The
contents of the lease deed is not supporting
the case of petitioner in light of judgment.
In fact, in that case, lease deed is perpetual
lease deed having no right of repatriation
whereas in the present case, there is no
such unfettered right of transfer in the lease
deed dated 23.2.2011 and only limited
rights are contained in Clause 9 of lease
deed with prior consent of landlord.
Secondly, lease deed dated 23.2.2011 was
time bound of 29 years & 11 months
subject to further renewal and right to
file/pursue suits for ejectment was also rest
with the first party and no right of transfer
was given to lessee-second party, therefore,
contention so raised here cannot be
accepted and judgment of State of U.P
(Supra) will not come into the rescue of
petitioner.
10 All. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
613

21. I have also perused the judgment
relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the matter of Ambica Prasad
(Supra). Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"17. On the question of tenancy,
both the trial court and the High Court
have not considered the provision of
Section109 of the Transfer of Property Act.

"109.
Rights
of
lessor's
transferee.-If the lessor transfers the
property leased, or any part thereof, or any
part of his interest therein, the transferee,
in the absence of a contract to the contrary,
shall possess all the rights, and, if the
lessee so elects, be subject to all the
liabilities of the lessor as to the property or
part transferred so long as he is the owner
of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason
only of such transfer cease to be subject to
any of the liabilities imposed upon him by
the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat
the transferee as the person liable to him:

Provided that the transferee is
not entitled to arrears of rent due before
the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not
having reason to believe that such transfer
has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the
lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent
over again to the transferee.

The lessor, the transferee and the
lessee may determine what proportion of
the premium or rent reserved by the lease
is payable in respect of the part so
transferred, and, in case they disagree,
such determination may be made by any
Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit
for the possession of the property leased.

18. From perusal of the aforesaid
Section, it is manifest that after the transfer
of lessor's right in favour of the transferee,
the latter gets all rights and liabilities of
the lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy.
The Section does not insist that transfer
will take effect only when the tenant
attorns. It is well settled that a transferee of
the landlord's rights steps into the shoes of
the landlord with all the rights and
liabilities of the transferor landlord in
respect of the subsisting tenancy. The
section does not require that the transfer of
the right of the landlord can take effect
only if the tenant attorns to him.
Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to
confer validity of the transfer of the
landlord's rights. Since attornment by the
tenant is not required, a notice under
Section 106 in terms of the old terms of
lease by the transferor landlord would be
proper and so also the suit for ejectment.

19.
As
noticed
above,
the
respondent-tenant
on
many
occasions
approached the appellant, the transferee,
owner and the landlord to receive the rent.
Further, admittedly, the electricity charges
of the tenanted premises were paid by the
tenant to the present appellant. Nonconsideration
of
subsequent
tenancy
agreement executed by the erstwhile owner
namely the brother of the appellant will not
come in the way of the present appellant to
seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of
personal necessity as also on the ground of
non-payment of rent. The approach of the
High Court reversing the appellate court's
finding cannot be sustained in law."

22. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment, it is clear that after the transfer
of lessor's right in favour of the transferee,
the latter gets all rights and liabilities of the
lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy.
Section 109 of T.P. Act itself clear that this
would be applicable in the absence of a
contract to the contrary, shall possess all
the rights, but so far as present lease is
concerned, there is specific contract that all
rights of prosecution lies with first party
and limited rights have been given to the
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
second party, therefore, this judgment
would not be applicable in the present case.

23. Learned counsel for the applicant
placed reliance upon judgment of this
Court in the case of Prakash Chand
(Supra) and submitted that lessee i.e.
owner is the necessary party, therefore,
relevant paragraph of the said judgment are
quoted hereinbelow:-

"1. By means of this writ petition,
the petitioner challenges the validity and
correctness of the order dated 5.6.2010
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Agra appended as Annexure-5 to
the writ petition, by which the application
for impleadment filed by respondent no.2
has been allowed.

7. It is urged that in absence of
any finding with regard to impleadment of
respondent
no.2
by
the
Prescribed
Authority, the controversy involved in P.A.
Case No. 23 of 2006 cannot be properly
and
effectively
decided,
hence
the
Prescribed Authority has acted illegally
while inferring presence of the applicant
for impleadment as necessary party to the
release application, as such the impugned
order cannot be sustained as there has to
be evidence much less prima facie evidence
to establish the existence of relationship of
landlord and tenant in between respondent
nos. 1 and 2. 12. The court below after
hearing objection on the impleadment
application held that the trust/impleader
third party is the necessary party to be
impleaded in the case. Relying upon the
decisions rendered in Narendra Nath
Srivastava versus Prescribed Authority,
Lucknow and others, ARC, 1992(2)-236
and Laxmi Narain versus District Judge,
Fatehpur and others, ARC 1991(2)-538
and considering the provisions of Sections
21(1) (a) and 22 of the U.P. Rent Control
Act, the court below held that it is
necessary for disposal of impleadment
application that as to who is the landlord
and owner of the property in suit since the
controversy is a matter of adjudication by
the regular court. It may also be noted here
that the impleader third party i.e. trust is
not getting its right adjudicated in the
release application filed by the petitioner
as owner of the property in dispute rather,
it has sought to be impleaded as a party as
the trust is being illegally ousted by the
tenant as alleged landlords who claim
themselves to be the owners of the property
in suit. When after the tenants do not pay
the rent and recognize some other person
as landlord for ousting the real landlords
from the scene, the rights of the third party
who claim to be real landlords and owners
would be affected. Even though the rights
of the impleader third party as owner may
not be adjudicated in a suit for rent and
eviction but it can not be said that its
impleadment is unnecessary for just and
equitable decision in the case particularly
when it may appear that the tenant is
colluding with other persons whose saledeeds have been cancelled recognizing
them as landlords to collusively oust the
real landlord. This being the position the
court below has rightly concluded that
impleader third party is a necessary
party."

24. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment, it is apparently clear that tenant
and landlord are colluded, therefore, to
save the right of actual owner, direction
was issued to implead the third party. In
fact, Court itself has held that in SCC Suit,
rights to implead the third party is not
required to be adjudicated, but only
considering the element of fraud and
collusion, order was passed. In the present
10 All. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
615
case,
tenancy
is
admitted
by
the
petitioner/defendant in written submission
and there is no allegation upon the
contesting parties. Therefore, this judgment
would also not applicable in the present
case.

25. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court in the matter of Bhim Sen
Wadhwa (Supra). Relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

"4. During its pendency, the
respondent sold the disputed shop to Ankur
Bharadwaj through registered sale deed
dated 21.4.2008 together with the right to
prosecute the suit and right to recover the
arrears of rent etc. whereupon, Ankur
Bhardwaj moved an application no. 42Ga
for impleadment as plaintiff while the
respondent moved application no. 45Ga for
amending the array of parties on identical
grounds. Both the applications have been
allowed by the courts below giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to file any
additional written statement. 7 There is
another aspect of the matter. Though both
the impugned orders have been passed in
favour of Ankur Bhardwaj, the subsequent
purchaser, but curiously he has not been
impleaded as a party. It is settled principle
of law and requirement of fair play that
where the interest of a party is in question,
he has to be impleaded and heard and no
orders against his interest can be passed
without hearing him. Therefore, on this
ground alone the writ petition is liable to
be
dismissed.
The
respondents
have
unnecessarily been dragged to this court
even though the petitioner has no stateable
right, therefore he is liable to pay cost."

26. From perusal of the same, it is
apparently clear that through registered sale
deed dated 21.4.2008 together with the
right to prosecute the suit and right to
recover the arrears of rent etc has been
transferred and interest of second party was
involved, but in the present case, all
elements are missing neither it is sale deed
nor right to prosecution was transferred
through
lease
deed.
Therefore,
this
judgment is also of no use in present
controversy.

27. He also placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.
Shyam Chandra Srivastava (Supra) with
the argument that transferees is necessary
party. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"18. In the case report in Ramesh
Hirachand Kundanmal. Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and
others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a
necessary party is one without whom no
order can be made effectively. A proper
party is one in whose absence, an effective
order can be made but whose presence is
necessary for a complete and final decision
on the question involved in the proceeding.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that a person should be
impleaded as party so far as he should be
bound by the result of the suit and question
to be settled. The relevant portion of the
Judgment
of the
Ramesh
Hirachand
Kundanmal's case (supra is reproduced as
under:-

"6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives
a wide discretion to the Court to meet every
case of defect of parties and is not affected
by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the
necessary parties on record. The question
of impleadment of a part has to be decided
on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which
provides that only a necessary or a proper
party may be added. A necessary party is
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one without whom no order can be made
effectively. A proper party is one in whose
absence on effective order can be made but
whose presence is necessary for a complete
and final decision on the question involved
in the proceeding. The addition of parties is
generally
not
a
question
of
initial
jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial
discretion which has to be exercised in
view of all the facts and circumstances of a
particular case.

14. It can not be said that the
main object of the rule is to prevent
multiplicity of actions though it may
incidentally have the effect. But that
appears to be a desirable consequence of
the rule rather than its main objective. The
person to be joined must be one whose
presence is necessary as a party. What
makes a person a necessary party is not
merely that he has relevant evidence to give
on some of the questions involved; that
would only make him a necessary witness.
It is not merely that he has an interest in
the correct solution of some question
involved and has thought of relevant
arguments to advance. The only reason
which makes it necessary to make a person
a party to an action is so that he should be
bound by the result of the action and the
question to be settled, therefore, must be a
question in action which cannot be
effectually and completely settled unless he
is a party. The line has been drawn on a
wider construction of the rule between the
direct interest or the legal interest and
commercial interest. It is, therefore,
necessary that the person must be directly
or legally interested in the action in the
answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation
may lead to a result which will affect him
legally that is by curtailing his legal rights.
It is difficult to say that the rule
contemplates joining as a defendant a
person whose only object is to prosecute
his own cause of action. Similar provision
was considered in Amon V Ropael Tuck &
Sons Ltd. 2, wherein after quoting the
observations of Wynn-Party,J. in Dollfus
Miweg et Compagnie S.A. V Bank of
England. 3, that their true test lies not so
much in an analysis of what are the
constituenis of the applicants' rights, but
rather in what would be the result on the
subject matter of the action if those rights
could be established, Devlin, J has stated.

"The test is "May the order for
which the plaintiff is asking directly affect
the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal
rights."

22
In
the
case
reported
Committee of Management, Ratan Muni
Jain Inter College and another. Vs. III
Additional Civil Judge, Agra and others) as
well as in AIR 1995 298 (Hridaya
NarainSingh. Vs. Lal and another), this
Court while interpreting the Order I Rule
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that
it is the discretion of the court to add
certain persons as party keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of a particular
case. For convenience, relevant portion of
the Committee of Management, Ratan Muni
Jain Inter College and another's case is
reproduced as under:-

"The theory of dominus litus
should not be over-stretched because it is
the duty of the court to ensure that if for
deciding the real matter in dispute, a
person is necessary party, the court can
order such persons to be impleaded.
Merely because the plaintiff does not
choose to implead a person, is not
sufficient for rejection of an application for
being impleaded. The provisions of Order I
Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. are very wide and the
powers of the court are equally extensive.
Even
without
an
application
to
be
impleaded as a party, the court may at any
stage of the proceedings order that the
10 All. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
617
name of any party, who ought to have been
joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or
whose presence before the court may be
necessary in order to enable the court
effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in
the suit, be added. So the learned Addl.
Civil Judge was totally wrong in believing
that Sri Moti Lal Jain's impleadment was
not necessary for proper adjudication of
the case. Although at page 4 of the
judgment (page 153), while dealing with
the point of dominus litus that the court
may consider whether the joining of a
person is essential or not but still he has
proceeded to delude himself that even
without the impleadment of Sri Moti Lal
Jain, an effective decree could be passed. It
amount to play Hamlet without the prince
of Denmark." 24. Allahabad High Court in
the case reported in AIR 1989 Allahabad
43 (Om Prakash Tewari Vs. State Bank of
India and others) held that the persons who
are in some way interested in a controversy
under suit, whether the relief has been
sought against others, may be impleaded as
proper parties, at the discretion of the
court. The relevant portion from Om
Prakash
Tewari's
case
(Supra)
is
reproduced as under:-

"Persons who are not essential to
be impleaded as defendants to a suit again
fall in two classes (1) of those who are ion
some way interested in, or connected with,
the relief sought against others and (2) of
others, who are not at all interested in, or
connected with it. Persons of latter class
must not be impleaded as defendants at all,
but persons of the former class may be
impleaded as proper parties at the
discretion of the plaintiff by way of
abundant caution or to avoid future
litigation and the relief will not be refused
on the ground that they have not been
impleaded. Second part of the decision is
that even the persons of former class may
be impleaded as proper parties at the
discretion of the plaintiff by way of
abundant caution. Here again the case as
in the present one is distinguishable. In the
present case the application has not been
made by the plaintiff for impleadment of the
National Insurance company rather the
plaintiff has been opposing the said
impleadment,
therefore,
the
aforesaid
decision of the Full Bench will not be of
any help to the applicant. Apart from that
the only provision which has been cited is
O.I R.10 (2). Even there it has been
provided that the court may at any stage of
the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party and on such
terms as may appear to the court to be just
order that the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the name
of any person who ought to have been
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or
whose presence before the court may be
necessary in order to enable the court
effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settled all the questions involved
in the suit be added. It is significant that
one of the very necessary principle in all
these cases for impleading a party is that
only such parties should be impleaded
whose presence are necessary to settle all
the questions involved in the suit."

28. From perusal of the aforesaid
paragraphs, it is apparently clear that
present dispute was arisen out of a regular
suit with regard to a dispute of will deed
and taking into account relevant provisions
of the Succession Act, judgment has been
given. So far as present SCC Suit is
concerned, it is summary in nature and only
pertaining to a tenancy dispute between the
landlord
and
tenant,
therefore,
this
judgment would also not be applicable in
the present case.
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. I have also perused the judgment
of this Court in the case of Shobhit Nigam
(Supra) relied by the learned counsel for
the opposite party. Relevant paragraph of
the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"38. In view of the aforesaid
discussion with efffect from 7th December
2015 the jurisdiction to try all suits
between the lessor and lessee for rent &
eviction under Section 15 of the Act as
applicable to the State of U.P., upto the
valuation of Rs. 1 Lakh irrespective of the
date of their institution would lie before the
Small Causes Court presided over by the
Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the
District Judge/Additional District Judge
would not have jurisdiction to decide them
except those having the valuation of over 1
lakh/"

30. From perusal of the same, it is
apparently clear that filing of proceedings
under the PSCC 1887 are contained under
Section 15 of the PSCC Act read with the II
Schedule and interpretation thereof would
lead to a conclusion that it is primarily
limited to disputes between lessor and
lessee for rent and eviction beyound that
nothing can be seen and same has also been
concluded in paragraph 38 of the judgment,
therefore, this Court is of the view that such
impleadment application in light of facts
hereinabove cannot be entertained in SCC
Suit.

31. I have also perused the judgment
of this Court in the case of Jeet Kaur and
Ors. (Supra) relied by the learned counsel
for the opposite party. Relevant paragraph
of
the
said
judgment
are
quoted
hereinbelow:-

"4. As regards the relevance of
the issue of title of the landlord in an
eviction suit under rent laws it is fairly well
settled that the impleadment of coowner/co-sharer to the proceedings is not
essential as eviction proceedings can
normally be decided on merits in absence
of such co-owner/co-sharer. In an eviction
suit filed by the landlord, only landlord and
tenant are necessary parties and in view
thereof title of landlord in an eviction suit
is not relevant. If the landlord fails to prove
his title but proves relationship of landlord
and tenant, and proves existence of any
ground pleaded for eviction then his suit
would succeed. On the other hand, if the
landlord proves his title but fails to prove
relationship of landlord and tenant, then
his suit would fail.

5. Moreover, the plaintiff in the
proceedings, being dominus litis, cannot be
compelled to implead any third party to
proceedings unless that third party proves
that he is necessary party and without his
presence the suit cannot be proceeded with
or can be decided effectively.

6. In this context an application
for impleadment by a third party asserting
right of owner-ship in the suit premises, is
liable to be rejected for the reason that
such person would neither be a necessary
nor proper party to eviction proceedings,
and in his absence the suit can be decreed
or dismissed on merits. The questions of
title or owner-ship can neither be decided
nor can be made subject matter of
determination in eviction proceedings. 9. In
the facts of the present case the application
seeking impleadment having been filed
asserting rights of owner ship and title, the
Court below has right rejected the same
following the well-settled proposition of
law that questions of title and owner-ship
cannot be gone into while deciding an
eviction suit."

32. The same ratio of law was also
followed by the Apex Court in the matter
10 All. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust
619
of Kanak Lata Das (Supra). Relevant
paragraph of the said judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:-

12. First, in an eviction suit filed
by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the
defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent
Act, the landlord and tenant are the only
necessary parties.

13. In other words, in a tenancy
suit, only two persons are necessary parties
for the decision of the suit, namely, the
landlord and the tenant.

14.
Second,
the
landlord
(plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead
and prove only two things to enable him to
claim a decree for eviction against his
tenant from the tenanted suit premises.
First, there exists a relationship of the
landlord and tenant between the plaintiff
and the defendant and second, the
ground(s) on which the plaintiff-landlord
has sought defendant's-tenant's eviction
under the Rent Act exists. When these two
things are proved, eviction suit succeeds.

15. Third, the question of title to
the suit premises is not germane for the
decision of the eviction suit.