Prafull Kumar Jena v. Kamal Kishore Gulati

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of. C.R.P. 256/2018 & CM No.49949/2018 (stay)

3. The impugned order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge-02, Central District, Delhi in Civil Suit No.2427/2017 (old CS No.312/2017) dismissing two applications of the petitioner; one under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); and another under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with 151 CPC are the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

4. Admittedly, the shop in question was taken by the petitioner from the respondent/plaintiff under the lease agreement dated 02.11.2015 at the 2018:DHC:7574 C.R.P. 256/2018 2 of 3 monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- and it was a month to month tenancy. Subsequently, on the insistence of the petitioner, the monthly rent was reduced to Rs.8,000/- per month w.e.f. June, 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent has been paid to the respondent/plaintiff till September, 2016 at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. By impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. October, 2016 at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month till the date of order within one month and he was further directed to keep on paying the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.8,000/-to the respondent till further orders.

5. At this stage, after making certain submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the rent in the Trial Court instead of paying directly to the respondent/plaintiff.

6. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall deposit arrears of rent w.e.f 01.10.2016 @ Rs.8000/- per month, within two months, in the Trial Court and shall keep on depositing the rent with the Trial Court which in turn shall release to the respondent/plaintiff.

7. By the same impugned order the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of Delhi Wakf Board as a party in the suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that later on the petitioner came to know that the suit property is owned by the Delhi Wakf Board and not by the respondent and as such Delhi Wakf Board is a necessary party to the suit. The Trial Court has dismissed the application holding that the Delhi Wakf Board is not a necessary party. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as the respondent/plaintiff is the master of his suit C.R.P. 256/2018 3 of 3 „dominus litis‟ and cannot be directed to contest with a person he does not want to. Moreover, the Delhi Wakf Board is not a necessary party for deciding the subject matter of the suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Additionally, Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 estops the tenant from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of the tenancy.

8. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.08.2018. The petition along with application being CM No.49949/2018 is disposed of accordingly.