KANAKLATA DAS & ORS. versus NABA KUMAR DAS & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 806 · Decided: 25-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
KANAKLATA DAS & ORS.
v.
NABA KUMAR DAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3018 of 2008)
JANUARY 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. I, r.10(2) – Respondent
No.1 sought permission u/Or. I, r.10(2) to become co-plaintiff in the
ejectment suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against respondent
Nos. 2 to 5-defendants for their eviction from the suit premises –
Application dismissed by the trial Court – However, allowed by the
High Court – Propriety of – Held: Not proper – Lis in the suit was
between the appellants on the one hand and respondent Nos. 2 to 5
on the other hand  – Decision in the suit would depend upon the
question as to whether there existed any relationship of landlord
and tenant between the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in
relation to the suit premises and, if so, whether the grounds pleaded
in the plaint for claiming eviction of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were
established or not – For deciding these two main questions, the
presence of respondent No. 1  not necessary – Respondent No.1 is
neither a necessary and nor a proper party in the suit – Accordingly,
order of the trial Court restored.
Party – Difference between a necessary party and proper
party – Held: 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.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Whether the High Court was justified in allowing
the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10
(2) of the CPC thereby permitting him to become co-plaintiff in
the Ejectment Suit filed by the appellants against respondent Nos.
2 to 5 for their eviction from the suit premises.
806
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 806
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
807
1. There are some well-settled principles of law on the
question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken into
consideration while deciding the question arose in this appeal.
These principles are mentioned infra. [Para 11] [811-C]
2. 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.  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.
[Paras 12, 13] [811-D-E]
3.  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. [Para 14] [811-E-F]
4.  Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not
germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being,
if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but
proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in
relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any
ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act,
the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his
title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of
relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit
premises, the eviction suit fails. [Paras 15, 16] [811-F-H]
5.  Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be
compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a
plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is
able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without
his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided
effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to
allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the
suit.  It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how
he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his
KANAKLATA DAS & ORS. v. NABA KUMAR DAS & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided
or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the
suit. [Paras 17, 18] [812-A-C]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.