TERIVENI SHIVHARI vs SRI SANJAY VYAS

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
CIVIL REVISION No. 56 of 2026
(under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court, Act)
th
Dated : 09 September, 2026

Triveni Shivhari and Another --Revisionists

Versus
Sanjay Vyas ---Respondent

---------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar and Ms. Sudha Tamta, learned counsel
for the revisionists.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Present Civil Revision has been filed by
the revisionists / defendants assailing the order dated
13.04.2026, passed by learned Additional District Judge
st
1 Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Small Cause Suit
No.41 of 2023, “Sanjay Vyas vs. Triveni Shivhari &
another”. By the said order, the application filed by the
revisionists under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for
impleadment of Baba Kali Kamli Wala Panchayat Kshetra
as a necessary Party to the suit was rejected.
2. A Small Cause Suit No.41 of 2023, “Sanjay
Vyas vs. Triveni Shivhari & another”, was filed by the
respondent / plaintiff for ejectment, arrears of rent and
mesne profit . The suit was filed in the month of October,
2023 and the respondent / plaintiff contended that on
1

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
the basis of a written agreement dated 31.08.2012,
which was entered between the revisionists and the
plaintiff, the suit property / shop-in-question was rented
on a monthly rent of Rs.9,000 for a period of eleven
months, starting from 01.09.2012.
A copy of the written rent agreement entered
3.
between the parties is enclosed as Annexure No.2,
wherein it is specified that the suit property, i.e., 9,
Mukherjee Marg, Rishikesh, Dehradun, is let out to the
revisionists for a period of eleven months from
01.09.2012. The rent agreement was for a period of
01.09.2012 to 31.07.2013. Admittedly, the revisionist is
a signatory to the said written agreement. Another rent
agreement was entered into between the revisionists
and the defendant on 31.07.2014. The said rent
agreement is enclosed with the Revision as Annexure
No.2. As per the said rent agreement, the revisionists /
defendants agreed to pay Rs.17 lakhs to the respondent
/ plaintiff and the suit property was rented for a period
of seven years. As per the second agreement, after a
period of seven years, the revisionists were required to
vacate the property and the respondent was required to
pay Rs.17 lakhs to the revisionists. The revisionists are
signatory to the said rent agreement also. Thus, the
2

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed.
A written statement was filed by the
4.
revisionists on 08.07.2024, wherein, though the fact that
rent agreement was entered into between the parties
was not disputed, however, it was stated that the title of
the property is with Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust, and
there is a dispute of title over the property between the
said Trust and the respondent / plaintiff.
Replica was filed by the respondent on
5.
21.10.2024, wherein it was clarified that the suit
property was rented to the revisionists by the
respondent / plaintiff, and on the basis of the written
rent agreement, there exists a relationship of landlord
and tenant between the parties. It was further stated
that the dispute, if any, between the respondent and the
Trust had nothing to do with the relationship that exists
between the revisionists and the respondent of a
landlord and tenant. An evidence affidavit was filed by
the respondent as PW-1 on 17.04.2025 and he was
cross-examined on 23.09.2025. The case was listed for
evidence of the revisionists on 31.01.2026, and on the
said date, an Application No.44C was filed by the
revisionists under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, wherein it was
contended that Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust is a
3

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
necessary party to the suit, and as such, a prayer was
made for impleading the said party as a respondent to
the suit.
The respondent / plaintiff filed an objection
6.
(46C) to the said Application on 17.02.2026 and the
learned Trial Court, vide order dated 13.04.2026,
rejected the said application filed by the revisionists. The
said order dated 13.04.2026 is impugned in the present
Civil Revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits
7.
that as there was a title dispute between the respondent
/ plaintiff and the Baba Kali Kamli Wala Panchayat
Kshetra Trust, as such, the said Trust was a necessary
party to the suit, and the application filed by the
revisionists was to be allowed, and the learned Trial
Court erred in dismissing the said application. He further
submits that, in case, an amount of Rs.17 lakhs was said
to be paid by the revisionists to the respondent, then the
suit was itself not maintainable before the Judge, Small
Cause Court.
8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the
respondent / plaintiff submitted that the revisionists in
the written statement had admitted the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties and had not
4

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
disputed the fact that there exists a rent agreement
between the parties. He further submits that the scope
of the small cause suit is limited to the extent of
deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties. Moreover, the revisionists had never
contended that the party sought to be impleaded had
ever claimed itself to be the landlord of the revisionists.
The dispute, if any, though denied, between the
respondent and a third party had no concern with the
suit, wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant was
admitted between the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent lastly
9.
submits that the revisionists had no locus to file any
such application for impleading a third party to the suit,
and the respondent, being the dominus litis , was at
liberty to choose the parties to be impleaded in the suit
and the scope of the Small Cause Court suit is beyond
the scrutiny of a title dispute of the property. He thus
submits that the learned trial court rightly rejected the
application filed by the revisionists.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
11. The rent agreement filed in the revision
reveals that the relationship of landlord and tenant was
5

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
admitted between the parties. In a suit for ejectment,
arrears of rent and mesne profit the question which the
court has to consider is that as to whether there exists a
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,
and, in case, there exists such relationship, then the
eviction suit is liable to succeed. The Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Kanaklata Das and Others vs. Naba
Kumar Das and Others, 2018 (2) SCC 352, had laid
down the principle which the court has to consider while
allowing an application filed by a respondent under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Paragraph 11 of the said
judgment reads as under:
“ 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
which arose in this appeal. These principles are
mentioned infra:
11.1 . 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. 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.
11.2 . 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 between the
plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s)
on which the plaintiff landlord has sought defendant
tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When
these two things are proved, the eviction suit
succeeds.
11.3. 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
6

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
ground on which the eviction is sought under the
Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. 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 Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi
Lal¹.)
11.4. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot
be compelled to make any third person a 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. 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
v. Sudha Rani Banerjee².)
11.5. 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 in the
proceeding. (See Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v.
Board of Revenue³.)
11.6. 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 v. M.
4
Chinniyan .)”

The Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated the
12.
said view in the judgment of the Nak Engineering
Company Private Limited vs. Tarun Keshrichand
Shah and Others, 2026 (3) SCC 631 .
Thus, the issue which the learned Trial Court
13.
had to consider and to decide was that as to whether
there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties, and on the basis of the evidence
7

UKHC010083812026

2026:UHC:8125
which was available before the learned trial court, it was
held that there exists a relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and it was also considered
that in a small causes suit, it is not necessary that the
landlord is the owner of the suit property.
The learned Trial Court considered the
14.
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in
the case of Sardar Dewan Singh vs. Khanuja
Finance Company 2018 (126) A.L.R. 603 , and also
considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kanaklata Das (supra) and held that
Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust is not a necessary party to
the suit.
15. This court is in agreement with the view taken
by the learned Trial Court that the said Trust was not a
necessary party to the suit, as there exists the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,
and as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the
said order.
16 . In view of the above, the present Civil
0
Revision fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.


(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
09.09.2026

Pant/
8