1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.3018 OF 2008

Kanaklata Das & Ors.        ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Naba Kumar Das & Ors.           …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final

judgment  and  order  dated  21.09.2006  passed  by

the High Court of Kolkata in C.O. No.1759 of 2006

whereby the High Court allowed the application filed

by  respondent  No.1  herein  and  reversed  the

judgment  and  order  dated  15.12.2005  passed  by

the  Judge,  Small  Causes  Court,  Kolkata  in

Ejectment Suit No.1615 of 2000 wherein the Trial

Court dismissed the application filed by respondent

No.1 herein under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of

2

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Code”) for impleadment as Plaintiff in the pending

ejectment suit.   

2. The controversy involved in this appeal is short

and it  would be  clear  from the  few relevant facts

mentioned hereinbelow.

3. The  appellants  are  the  plaintiffs  whereas

respondent  Nos.  2 to  5  are  the  defendants  in  an

Ejectment Suit out of which this appeal arises.  

4. The appellants have filed a suit for ejectment

being  Ejectment  Suit  No.1615/2000  against

respondent  Nos.  2  to  5  before  the  Small  Causes

Court at Calcutta for their eviction on the grounds

of  non-payment of  rent,  subletting,  and  bona fide

need  of  the  suit  premises  for  their  personal  use

under  the  provisions of  the  West  Bengal  Tenancy

Act.  Respondent  Nos.  2  to  5  have  entered

appearance  and  are  contesting  the  suit  which  is

pending.  

3

5. In the Ejectment Suit, respondent No. 1 herein

filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the

Code  praying  therein  that  he  may  be  allowed  to

become the  co-plaintiff  along  with  the  appellants.

Respondent No. 1 sought his impleadment alleging

that he is a member of the appellants’ family and

being so, has a right, title and interest not only in

the suit premises but also in other family properties

as one of the co-owners. It is essentially on these

allegations and with a view to protect his interest in

the  suit  premises,  respondent  No.  1  sought  his

impleadment in the suit.  

6. The said application for impleadment made by

respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the Trial Court

by  order  15.12.2005(Annexure-P-7)  but  it  was

allowed by the High Court by the impugned order

giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special

leave  in  this  Court  against  the  order  of  the  High

Court by the appellants (plaintiffs).

4

7. Therefore, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this  appeal,  is  whether  the  High

Court was justified in allowing the application filed

by respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of

the  Code  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.  

8. Heard Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel

for  the  appellants  and  respondent  No.1,  who

appeared in-person.

9. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants  and  respondent  No.  1,  in-person,  who

alone  is  the  contesting  respondent  in  this  appeal

and on perusal  of  the  record of  the  case,  we are

inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside

the impugned order of the High Court, restore the

order  of  the  Trial  Court  with  observations

hereinbelow.

5

10. In other words, we are inclined to dismiss the

application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 1

Rule 10(2) of the Code in appellants’ ejectment suit.

11. 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.

12. 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.  

13. 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.  

14. 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

6

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.

15. 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.  

16.  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.  (See-Dr.

Ranbir Singh  vs. Asharfi Lal, 1995(6) SCC 580).    

17. Fourth,  the  plaintiff  being  a  dominus  litis

cannot  be  compelled  to  make  any third  person a

7

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.  

18. 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 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.

(See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee

& Anr., 2005(8) SCC 140)  

19.  Fifth, 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

8

in  the  proceeding.  (See-Udit  Narain  Singh

Malpaharia  vs.  Additional  Member  Board  of

Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 786)   

20. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of

the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord

can file  a  suit  for  eviction  against  the  tenant.  In

other  words,  it  is  not  necessary  that  all  the

owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction

suit  against  the  tenant.  (See-Kasthuri

Radhakrishnan & Ors. vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr.,

2016(3) SCC 296)

21. Keeping  in  mind  the  aforementioned  well

settled  principles  of  law  and  on  examining  the

legality  of  the  impugned  order,  we  find  that  the

impugned order is not legally sustainable and hence

deserves to be set aside.

22. In our considered opinion, respondent No. 1,

who  claims  to  be  the  co-sharer  or/and  co-owner

with  the  plaintiffs  (appellants  herein)  of  the  suit

property  is  neither  a  necessary  and nor  a  proper

9

party in the eviction suit of the appellants against

respondent  Nos.  2  to  5.  In  other  words,  such

eviction suit can be decreed or dismissed on merits

even without the impleadment of respondent No.1.

23. In the eviction suit, the question of title or the

extent  of  the  shares  held  by  the  appellants  and

respondent  No.  1  against  each  other  in  the  suit

premises cannot be decided and nor can be made

the subject matter for its determination.  

24. The  reason  being  that  this  is  not  a  suit

between the  appellants  (plaintiffs)  and respondent

No.1 where their  inter se rights relating to the suit

premises  can  be  gone  into  but  rather  is  an

ejectment  suit  filed  by  the  appellants  against

respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for their eviction from the

suit premises.

25.  Therefore, the  Lis in the suit is between the

appellants on the one hand and respondent Nos. 2

to 5 on the other hand and the decision in the suit

would  depend  upon  the  question  as  to  whether

10

there exists 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 are established or

not.  For  deciding  these  two  main  questions,  the

presence of respondent No. 1 is not necessary.  

26. For  these  reasons,  we  are  of  the  considered

opinion that respondent No. 1 is neither a necessary

and nor a proper party in the suit.

27. We,  however,  make  it  clear  that  any  finding

whether  directly  or  indirectly,  if  recorded  by  the

Trial Court touching the question of title over the

suit property, would not be binding on respondent

No.1  regardless  of  the  outcome  of  the  suit  and

respondent  No.  1  would  be  free  to  file  an

independent civil  suit against the appellants for a

declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit

premises  and  in  any  other  properties,  if  so,  and

11

claim partition and separate possession of his share

by metes and bounds in all such properties.  

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set

aside and the order of the Trial Court is restored.  

29. As  a  consequence,  the  application  filed  by

respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the

Code  in  the  aforementioned  ejectment  suit  is

dismissed.

30. The  Trial  Court  is  directed  to  decide  the

ejectment  suit  on  merits  in  accordance  with  law

expeditiously.

                  ………...................................J.   [R. K. AGRAWAL]

                                    …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; January 25, 2018