RICHARD LEE versus GIRISH SONI AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 02-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) l S.C.R. 665 
RICHARD LEE 
v. 
GIRISH SONI AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1345 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 02, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A, M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order I, Rule 10-Impleadment 
as necessary party - Eviction petition by respondent - Application 
for impleadment as necessary party by appellant alleging that he 
was partner in a firm-tenant in the shop in dispute - Application 
allowed by Rent Controller - However, set aside by tribunal and 
High Court - On appeal, held: For proper adjudication, both the 
firm and all its partners should be on the array of parties as proper 
party - They are not necessary parties from the point of view of the 
Eviction Petition - However, the Court has a duty to see whether 
the presence of the proper parties would facilitate the complete 
determination of the matter in dispute - In view of the power under 
Order I, Rule JO, suo motu invoked by this Court, the firm and the 
partners are impleaded by this Court in the proceedings - Parties 
directed to appear before the Ren/' Controller who would adjudicate 
all the questions including the question as to whether there was a 
partnership as tenant - Eviction petition having been pending since 
2010, Rent Controller to dispose of the same expeditiously - Rent 
Control and Eviction. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1345 of 
2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2014 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in CM (M) No. 1217 of2013. 
C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ankit Sahni, Dhruv D., Ms. Ambika Singh 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Pratiyush, Jose Abraham, Advs. for the Appellant. 
G 
Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Rohit Singh, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
665 
H 
666 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 1 S.C.R. 
2. The simple issue that arises for consideration in this case is 
whether the appellant should be a proper party in the Eviction Petition 
No.18120 I 0 filed by the respondents herein before the Rent Controller, 
Delhi. The appellant herein moved an application for impleadment as a 
necessary party in the eviction petition. Paragraph 3 of the application 
for impleadment filed under Order l Rule I 0 reads as follows: 
"3. That the petition filed by the petitioenrs is false. It is submitted 
that the shop in dispute was let out by Shri Chuni Lal Soni to a 
partnership firm Mis: K.K. Lee with effect from November, 1963 
Mis. K.K. Lee was a partnership firm comprising of three brothers 
namely Shri Lee Queth Khong, Shri Lee Shearn Khong and Lee 
Aches Khong as its partners. Shri Chuni Lal Soni had been 
recovering rent from the said partnership firm from the inception 
of tenancy till he continued to recover the rent, through Ale Payee 
cheques issued from the Bank account of the said partnership 
firm, Shri Chuni Lal Soni somewhere in 1968-69 called upon the 
said. partnership firm to pay rent to Dr. P.C. Soni, his brother. The 
said partnership firm thereafter paid the rent to Dr. P.C. Soni by 
way of cheques from its bank account. Dr. P.C. Soni however did 
not issue any receipt after receiving the said cheques. The shop 
in disputes was initially let out at Rs.3501- per month. Thereafer 
somewhere in 1983 on an understanding and contract entered 
into between Dr. P.C. Soni and the said partnership firm Mis. KK 
Lee the rent was increased to Rs.5001- per month. It is pertinent 
to mention here that initially Shri L. Queth Khong started the 
business in the name of Mis K.K. Lee as its sole proprietor at 
28A, Khan Market New Delhi. He took Shri Le Shearn Khong 
and Shri Lee Aches Khong, his brothers as partners in the said 
business with effect from 1.11.1960. The said partnership took 
the shop in dispute on rent from Shri Chuni Lal Soni and shifted its 
business to the shop in dispute. Shri L. Queth Khong was never a 
tenant in the shop in dispute in his personal capacity. All the said 
three brothers have died. The applicant is the son of Shri Lee 
Shearn Khong and is one of the tenants in the shop in disputes. 
The applicant is carrying on business in the shop in dispute along 
with the Shri Sean Wee Lee Slo Late Shri Lee Queth Khong, Shri 
Kenneth Lee, slo Shri Late Lee Aches Khong and Mr. Beryl A 
Lee, wlo Shri Late Lee Shearn Khong as partners of Mis. K.K. 
Lee. All the said partners are the tenants in the shop in dispute 
RICHARD LEE v. GIRISH SONI AND ANR. 
[KURIAN, J.) 
and are carry

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