# Noor Ahmad v. Qazi Zafar Ahmad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 152
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-27
- **Case number:** Writ A ( Rent Control) No. 960 of 2011
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/noor-ahmad-v-qazi-zafar-ahmad-anr-47170
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Rent suit -
Nature and Scope - Impleadment -
Permissibility - Enlargement of cause of
action altering it in a Title suit - Extent of
- Held, cause of action cannot be enlarged
so as to alter the scope of a rent suit to a
title suit - Ex-hypothesi, no party can be
impleaded who seeks to bring in a cause
of action that would ultimately convert
the rent suit into a title suit - This position
of the law is beyond cavil, going by
consistent authority - Courts below have
not committed any error of law in
declining the petitioner's prayer to be
impleaded in a rent suit. (Para 7 and 11)
8 All. Noor Ahmad Vs. Qazi Zafar Ahmad & Anr.
153
Writ dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
then they should be paid minimum of pay
scale admissible for Class-IV employee in
view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in re; Sabha Shanker Dube v.
Divisional Forest Officer and others,
(2019) 12 SCC 297. Paragraphs 12, 13 &
14 of the aforesaid judgment are being
reproduced herein below:-

"12. In view of the judgment in
Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit
Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC
(L&S) 1] , we are unable to uphold the
view of the High Court that the appellants
herein are not entitled to be paid the
minimum of the pay scales. We are not
called upon to adjudicate on the rights of
the appellants relating to the regularisation
of their services. We are concerned only
with the principle laid down by this Court
initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti
Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
1819] relating to persons who are similarly
situated to the appellants and later
affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v.
Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1
SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees
are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as
long as they continue in service.

13. We express no opinion on the
contention of the State Government that the
appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as
they are not working on Group 'D' posts
and that some of them worked for short
periods in projects.

14.
For
the
aforementioned
reasons, we allow these appeals and set
aside the judgments of the High Court
holding that the appellants are entitled to
be paid the minimum of the pay scales
applicable to regular employees working
on the same posts. The State of Uttar
Pradesh is directed to make payment of the
minimum of pay scales to the appellants
with effect from 1-12-2018."

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the opposite parties
to pay the minimum of pay scale to the
petitioners applicable to a regular employee
working on the same post forthwith,
preferably within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.

6. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A152
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A ( Rent Control) No. 960 of 2011

Noor Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
Qazi Zafar Ahmad & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Mehrotra, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Tandon

A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Rent suit -
Nature and Scope - Impleadment -
Permissibility - Enlargement of cause of
action altering it in a Title suit - Extent of
- Held, cause of action cannot be enlarged
so as to alter the scope of a rent suit to a
title suit - Ex-hypothesi, no party can be
impleaded who seeks to bring in a cause
of action that would ultimately convert
the rent suit into a title suit - This position
of the law is beyond cavil, going by
consistent authority - Courts below have
not committed any error of law in
declining the petitioner's prayer to be
impleaded in a rent suit. (Para 7 and 11)
8 All. Noor Ahmad Vs. Qazi Zafar Ahmad & Anr.
153
Writ dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Shafiq Ahmad Vs Vth A.D.J., Varanasi & ors.,
1998 (2) ARC 329
2. Ram Rikh Das Thakur Das (M/S) & anr. Vs
D.J. & ors., 2009 (3) ARC 734
3. Sharafat Hussain & ors. Vs XIth A.D.J.,
Moradabad, 1992(2) ARC 307
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Case called on. No one appears on
behalf of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Manish Tandon, appears on
behalf of the respondent no.1.

3. Since the point involved is short and
parties have exchanged affidavits, this Court
proceeds to determine the petition on merits.

4. S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 2006 was filed
by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2
for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent.
In the said suit, the petitioner, who is a third
party, has made an application seeking
impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
The ground seeking impleadment is that he is
owner of the demised premises to the extent
of a half share. He has claimed title as a coowner to the extent of half share with the
plaintiff on the basis of an oral gift (Hiba)
from one Smt. Nawab Jahan Begum. The
plaintiff-respondent no.1 has refuted the
petitioner's claim by filing objections. The
second-respondent-tenant, on the other hand,
does not dispute the fact that he is a tenant in
the demised premises. The suit is one for
eviction brought on the relationship of a
landlord-tenant between respondent nos.1
and 2.

5. The courts below have refused the
petitioner's application for impleadment on
the ground that suit is one instituted for
eviction
based
on
a
landlord-tenant
relationship, where a third party cannot be
permitted to be impleaded.

6. This Court has perused the
impugned orders and the materials on
record. It is apparent from the plaint filed
by the first respondent, who is the plaintiff
in the suit brought against the second
respondent, the sole defendant to the suit,
that the suit is one for ejectment and arrears
of rent brought by the plaintiff-respondent
against the defendant-respondent on the
basis of a relationship of landlord and
tenant vis-a-vis the demised premises. In
the event, the petitioner, who is a third
party, is permitted to be impleaded as a
party to the suit, the Court would be called
upon to adjudicate a title dispute inter se
the petitioner and respondent no.1. If that
were to happen, the rent suit would be
converted into a title suit.

7. It is against the settled principle
governing disposition of rent suits, that the
cause of action cannot be enlarged so as to
alter the scope of a rent suit to a title suit.
Ex-hypothesi, no party can be impleaded
who seeks to bring in a cause of action that
would ultimately convert the rent suit into a
title suit. This position of the law is beyond
cavil, going by consistent authority.

8. In this connection, reference may
be made to the decision of this Court in
Shafiq Ahmad Vs. Vth Additional District
Judge, Varanasi and Others, 1998 (2)
ARC 329, where it has been held :

6. On the facts and circumstances
narrated above it is apparent that there is
no title dispute concerning the property in
suit. It is a simple ejectment proceeding by
a landlord against a tenant. Smt. Shakila
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has admittedly paid rent to Smt. Hamida
Bano. The suit has been filed on the ground
that the tenant is a defaulter whose tenancy
has been terminated by the landlord
through a notice Under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the
suit has to be decided on the interse
relationship and conduct of the landlord
and the tenant. The controversy as to
whether there was or not any oral gift by
the landlady Smt. Hamida Bano in favour
of the petitioner will be absolutely foreign
to the issues involved. Again, in view of the
respective
averments
made
by
the
petitioner and Smt. Hamida Bano it is more
than apparent that while the petitioner
claims through an oral gift, the said
Hamida Bano refutes loudly the said
allegation. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that neither it will be in the interest of
justice nor desirable for safeguarding the
interest of parties to direct the impleadment
of the petitioner as a plaintiff in the suit.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has
drawn my attention to the case reported in
: AIR 1987 Bom 276. The facts of the said
case were entirely different in as much as
therein matter of title were to be gone into.
Therefore, the authority does not help the
petitioner in any way. No other ruling was
cited and no other point has been argued.
The order passed by the trial court is
neither illegal nor suffers from any factual
error and is upheld.

9. Likewise in a decision of this Court
in Ram Rikh Das Thakur Das (M/S) and
another Vs. District Judge and others,
2009 (3) ARC 734, it has been held thus:

" 3. The facts as alleged in the
writ petition are that petitioners No. 1, 2
and respondents No. 3 to 5 claim
themselves to be the owners of the property
and respondents No. 6 to 9 are the tenants.
It is the case of the petitioners that initially
the rent was being realized by respondents
No. 3 to 5 and the receipts to that effect
were being issued to the respondents No. 6
to 9 and the share of rent was being
distributed amongst the petitioners No. 1
and 2 as well as respondents No. 3 to 5.
During pendency of the suit, an application
was filed on behalf of the tenantrespondent that petitioners No. 1 and 2
may be impleaded being co-owners of the
property and they should be impleaded as
one of the parties in the said proceeding.
The said application was rejected. Then the
petitioners No. 1 and 2 made an
application to be impleaded in the said
proceeding as one of the parties claiming
themselves to be the landlord but the said
application was rejected on the ground that
this is a proceeding regarding ejectment
and arrears of rent against tenantrespondents No. 6 to 9. In case the
petitioners are co-owners of the property,
this question cannot be decided in the said
proceeding because question of title and
ownership cannot be decided in such
proceeding. The said application was
rejected-vide its order dated 4.9.2009 and
the revision filed by the petitioners has also
been dismissed holding therein that the
question
of
title
in
view
of
legal
pronouncement in the case of J.J. Lal Pvt.
Ltd. v. M.R. Murali and Anr. reported in
AIR 2000 SC 1061 cannot be decided in
such proceeding as it would change the
nature of litigation. Adjudication of the title
is beyond the scope of the suit. Holding this
the revisional court has dismissed the
revision.

4.
I
have
considered
the
submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners and perused the record. In case
the petitioners are aggrieved by the action
of respondents No. 2 and 3 to 5, they can
file separate suit to get it decided that they
8 All. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Smt. Asha Gupta
155
are the owners and landlords of the
property in question. In such proceeding
which is based only on the question of
arrears of rent and ejectment, the question
of title and ownership cannot be decided.
The Judge Small Causes Court cannot
decide the question of title between the
parties."

10. A similar view has been
expressed
in
a
short
but
sterling
enunciation of the principles in Sharafat
Hussain and others Vs. XIth Addl.
District Judge, Moradabad, 1992(2)
ARC 307 where it has been held by S.C.
Verma, J. :

"2. In a suit for arrears of rent
and ejectment filed by one Smt. Paigham
bari Begum, the petitioner has sought
impleadment as necessary party. Both the
Courts have held that in a suit for arrears
of rent and ejectment, which is basically
a suit between the Landlord and tenant,
the
plaintiff's
impleadment
is
not
necessary and in case he is entitled either
as owner or as landlord he may initiate
separate proceedings for establishing his
title and for retention of his possession,
in case he is in possession. I find no
reason the interfere with the order of
Judge,
Small
Causes
Courts
dated
13.01.1990
and
the
order
dated
26.08.1991 by the learned Additional
District Judge, Moradabad in rejecting
the
petitioner's
application
for
impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition
has no merit and is accordingly in limine.

11. It is, thus, apparent that the
courts below, in declining the petitioner's
prayer to be impleaded in a rent suit, have
not committed any error of law that may
merit interference by this Court.

12. In the result this petition fails and
is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Writ A ( Rent Control) No. 2277 of 2021

Krishna Kumar Maheshwari ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Asha Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ayush Khanna, Sri Atul Dayal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Sri Arvind
Srivastava, Ms. Shreya Gupta

A.
Civil
Law
-
UP
Urban
Building
Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1) & 22 - Eviction
suit - Word 'Bona fide need' - Meaning -
It should receive useful meaning rather
struck off and should attach a practical
meaning granted by realistic of life - Held,
the landlord has clearly established that
shop in question is needed by her son to
start on-line trading and share business
and the need of the landlord is 'bona fide'
and genuine. (Para 21 and 22)
B. UP Urban Building Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 -
Eviction suit - Comparative hardship of
landlord and tenant - Landlord was not in
possession
of
any
alternate
accommodation, the tenement in question
is situated in four storeyed building and
only
ground
floor
is
commercial
-
Concurrent finding - Held, the tenant has
unnecessarily held up the shop in question
and therefore the ground of comparative
hardship is also in favour of the landlord -
High
Court
found
no
perversity
or