Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1345 OF 2017 [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.823/2015]

RICHARD LEE PETITIONER(S)                                 VERSUS

GIRISH SONI AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 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.18/2010 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  I  Rule  10  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

1

Page 2

M/s. K.K. Lee with effect from November, 1963   M/s.  K.K.  Lee  was  a  partnership firm comprising of three brothers namely Shri  Lee  Queth  Khong,  Shri  Lee  Sheam 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 A/c 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.350/-  per month.  Thereafer somewhere in 1983 on an understanding and contract entered into between Dr. P.C. Soni and the said partnership firm M/s. KK Lee the rent was increased to Rs.500/- per month. It  is  pertinent  to  mention  here  that initially Shri L. Queth Khong started the business in the name of M/s K.K. Lee as its sole proprietor at 28A, Khan Market New Delhi.  He took Shri Le Sheam 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 Sheam 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 S/o  Late  Shri  Lee  Queth  Khong,  Shri Kenneth  Lee,  s/o  Shri  Late  Lee  Aches Khong and Mr. Beryl A Lee, w/o Shri Late Lee Sheam Khong as partners of M/s. K.K. Lee.   All  the  said  partners  are  the

2

Page 3

tenants in the shop in dispute and are carrying on the business in the name of M/s. KK Lee therein.  It is pertinent to mention here that the rent receipts were being issued in the name of KK Lee by Shri Chuni Lal Soni.”

3. It  is  the  contention  of  the  respondents  that there is no tenancy in favour of the firm in the name and style K.K. Lee as has already been found by the  Rent  Controller  in  a  previous  proceedings  as  per order  dated  24.10.1998  of  the  Additional  Rent Controller, Delhi, when the respondents initiated the eviction  proceedings  against  the  original  tenants Shri L. QuethKhong.  Paragraph 10 of the said order, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:

“10. The reliance of the respondent on payment of rent by account payee cheque and encashment by the petitioner is of no help as payment of rent will not create the  relations  of  landlord  and  tenant. Reliance  is  placed  on  illegible. Similarly, Ex.AW1/R2 will not create the relationship of landlord and tenant.  For creation of relationship of landlord and tenant must be at ad-idem.  Ex.AW1/R1 is of no help to the respondent as in my considered  view  there  is  inter pollution/cutting in the word Mr. and it has  been  made  as  M/s  from  Mr.  this observation of mine is substantiated if we perused Ex.AW1/3 to Ex.AW1/29.  All these counter foils of rent receipts on the  bottom  categorically  contained  the signatures  of  the  tenant.   Mr.  L. QuethKhong has signed these receipts as a tenant in his individual capacity.  Had

3

Page 4

the firm been the tenant, then he must have signed on behalf of the firm.  Had the intention of Mr. L. QuethKhong have to  made  the  firm  M/s  K.K.  Lee  is  a tenant, then this fact must have found mention in the lease deed.  The firm was in existence since 1960 and the tenancy was created in 1963.  Had the firm been tenant, then Mr. L. QuethKhong must have signed as partner of the firm and not in his individual capacity.”

4. The Rent Controller allowed the application for impleadment, which was challenged by the respondents herein in Revision Petition before the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal.  The Tribunal set aside the order passed  by the  Rent Controller.  The said  order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, leading to the impugned order. 5. The High Court has concurred with the Appellate Authority.  Thus, aggrieved, the present appeal. 6. Having extensively heard Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev  Mahajan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the respondents,  we are  of the  view that  for properly adjudicating the issue before the Rent Controller in Eviction  Petition  No.18/2010,  in  view  of  the contentions taken by the parties, both the firm in the name and style of K.K. Lee and all its partners should be on the array of parties as proper party.

4

Page 5

No  doubt, they  are not  necessary parties  form the point of view of the Eviction Petitioners, but the Court has a duty to see whether the presence of the proper  parties  would  facilitate  the  complete determination of the matter in dispute. The following are the names of the partners of the firm:

i. Mr. Richard Lee ii. Mr. Sean Wee Lee iii. Mr. Kenneth Lee iv. Mrs. Beryl Lee

7. The firm as represented by its managing partner, if  any,  or  duly  authorized  person  amongst  the partners to represent the firm will stand impleaded as additional respondent and all the partners will stand impleaded also as additional respondents.  We leave  open  all  the  questions,  to  be  adjudicated before the Rent Controller including the questions as to  whether  there  was  a  partnership  as  tenant  and being an issue once adjudicated and concluded before the  Rent  Controller,  whether  that  finding  is conclusive  as  far  as  the  present  proceedings  are concerned. 8. In view of the power under Order I, Rule 10 suo motu  invoked  by  us,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the parties to file separate application, since we have ourselves impleaded the firm and the partners in the

5

Page 6

proceedings.   We  direct all  the parties  to appear before  the  Rent  Controller, Delhi on 1.3.2017.  Within two weeks from today, the respondents  will  file  an  amended  memo  of  parties before  the  Rent  Controller.  The  additionally impleaded respondents, if they chose to file written statement,  will  file  it  either  jointly  or individually,  within  a  period  of  thirty  days  from today. 9. Till the complete and effectual adjudication, the interim order passed by this Court on 13.1.15 with regard  to  deposit  of  Rs.75,000/-  per  month  will continue unless it is duly varied by an appropriate forum. 10. We make it clear that the Rent Controller will pass appropriate orders with regard to the release of the amount when the petition is finally disposed of. 11. We direct the Rent Controller, having regard to the fact that the eviction petition has been pending since 2010, to dispose of the same expeditiously and in any case within six months from the date of the first  appearance.  The  appeal  is  disposed  of,  as above. 12. Pending  application(s),  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of.

6

Page 7

13. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [A.M. KHANWILKAR]  

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 02, 2017.

7