Full Judgment Text
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,
JUDGMENT
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 1
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
JUDGMENT
2
Page 2
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
JUDGMENT
3
Page 3
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
JUDGMENT
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 4
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
JUDGMENT
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 5
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.
JUDGMENT
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 6
13. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J.
[A.M. KHANWILKAR]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 02, 2017.
JUDGMENT
7
Page 7