Full Text
Translation output
A-44
% 13.10.2011
Present: Mr. Narendra M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM(M) No. 1185/2011 and CM Nos. 18841-42/2011
*
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
02.04.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead
Smt. Rakhi Goyal (proposed defendant) along with defendant (her husband) had been allowed.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for mandatory, permanent injunction, recovery of rent and damages. Plaintiff has claimed himself to be the lawful owner of the basement floor situated in premises bearing No. D-89, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
Contention is that the defendant-Rajiv Goyal was inducted as a tenant vide a rent deed dated 11.01.2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.
10,000/-. The lease was initially for a period of 36 months which expired on 31.12.2007. Defendant has vacated the tenanted premises except one toilet and store stituated on the rear side of the tenanted premises for which he had sought time to vacate same. Suit had been filed seeking mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant directing him to vacate this aforenoted portion i.e. one toilet and store situated on the rear side of the suit premises.
2011:DHC:7577
After the written statement had been filed by the defendant, the present apphcation has been filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of Rakhi Goyal. This was in view of the defence taken in the written statement that this property had been sold by a separate Sale Deed dated 11.01.2005 to Smt. Rakhi Goyal. It was in these circumstances, that this application had surfaced. The impugned order allowing this prayer made by the plaintiff suffers from no infirmity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by allowing this prayer of the plaintiff, the complexion of the litigation has changed.
To support this submission reliance has been placed upon a
% 13.10.2011
Present: Mr. Narendra M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM(M) No. 1185/2011 and CM Nos. 18841-42/2011
*
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
02.04.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead
Smt. Rakhi Goyal (proposed defendant) along with defendant (her husband) had been allowed.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for mandatory, permanent injunction, recovery of rent and damages. Plaintiff has claimed himself to be the lawful owner of the basement floor situated in premises bearing No. D-89, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
Contention is that the defendant-Rajiv Goyal was inducted as a tenant vide a rent deed dated 11.01.2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.
10,000/-. The lease was initially for a period of 36 months which expired on 31.12.2007. Defendant has vacated the tenanted premises except one toilet and store stituated on the rear side of the tenanted premises for which he had sought time to vacate same. Suit had been filed seeking mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant directing him to vacate this aforenoted portion i.e. one toilet and store situated on the rear side of the suit premises.
2011:DHC:7577
After the written statement had been filed by the defendant, the present apphcation has been filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of Rakhi Goyal. This was in view of the defence taken in the written statement that this property had been sold by a separate Sale Deed dated 11.01.2005 to Smt. Rakhi Goyal. It was in these circumstances, that this application had surfaced. The impugned order allowing this prayer made by the plaintiff suffers from no infirmity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by allowing this prayer of the plaintiff, the complexion of the litigation has changed.
To support this submission reliance has been placed upon a
JUDGMENT
of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SC1061 titled as
T.L Lai Pvt. Ltd. vs. M.R. Murali and Ors. His further contention is that in reply to the legal notice he had informed the plaintiff that this property comprising of a toilet and store had been sold to him vide a separate sale deed dated 11.01.2005.
Relevant would it be to state that date of the sale deed and the rent deed are the same i.e. 11.01.2005. The court below had correctly analyzed the factual scenario; it had noted that the rent deed and the sale deed had been executed on the same day shows that parties had no idea about future dispute which may arise qua the said property. It was only after the termination of tenancy that dispute had arisen when only a part of the suit property had been vacated by the tenant; plaintiff had thus been constrained to file the present proceedings.
Provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Cove have been incorporated in the statute to avoid a multiplicity of litigation and wherever the court feels it just and proper to solve a controversy in dispute and to effectively and efficiently adjudicate upon the dispute, a party necessary to the dispute may be added or deleted.
It was in these circumstances that the prayer made by the plaintiff was allowed.
Impugned order suffers no infirmity; petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2011 rb
T.L Lai Pvt. Ltd. vs. M.R. Murali and Ors. His further contention is that in reply to the legal notice he had informed the plaintiff that this property comprising of a toilet and store had been sold to him vide a separate sale deed dated 11.01.2005.
Relevant would it be to state that date of the sale deed and the rent deed are the same i.e. 11.01.2005. The court below had correctly analyzed the factual scenario; it had noted that the rent deed and the sale deed had been executed on the same day shows that parties had no idea about future dispute which may arise qua the said property. It was only after the termination of tenancy that dispute had arisen when only a part of the suit property had been vacated by the tenant; plaintiff had thus been constrained to file the present proceedings.
Provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Cove have been incorporated in the statute to avoid a multiplicity of litigation and wherever the court feels it just and proper to solve a controversy in dispute and to effectively and efficiently adjudicate upon the dispute, a party necessary to the dispute may be added or deleted.
It was in these circumstances that the prayer made by the plaintiff was allowed.
Impugned order suffers no infirmity; petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2011 rb