Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) No. 992/2014 & CM 18242/14 & Caveat 979/14
10th November, 2014 RAZZAK ...... Petitioner
Through: None.
Through: Mr. S.K.Verma, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Salim Malik, Adv. for R-2.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner and who was the applicant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order of the trial court dated 15.9.2014 by which the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner/applicant under Order I Rule 10 CPC on the ground that the subject suit for possession filed by the respondent no.1 herein/plaintiff in the suit against the respondent no.2 herein/defendant in the suit cannot be converted into a title suit between the applicant and respondent no.1 herein/plaintiff.
2. The subject suit is a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, 2014:DHC:5838 CMM 992/2014 recovery of mesne profits etc in which respondent no.1/plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property and accordingly seeks possession from the respondent no.2/tenant/defendant.
3. Trial court has rightly observed that the existing suit which is a suit between a person who claims to be a landlord namely the respondent no.1 herein and against his tenant who is respondent no.2 herein, cannot be taken on an offtangent to prove inter se title disputes between the petitioner/applicant and the respondent no.1 herein/plaintiff. Trial court has rightly observed that if the petitioner/applicant wants to claim title, he is entitled to and can always file an independent suit claiming the title in which he can include the parties to the present suit ie respondent nos.[1] and 2 herein as parties and in which suit the claim of the applicant/petitioner would be decided. Of course, any of the parties either in the present suit or in the suit which can be filed by the petitioner can in accordance with law seek appropriate interim orders with respect to protection of their rights.
4. I therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my extraordinary and discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Dismissed.
NOVEMBER 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib