Allahabad HC Upholds Keeping Sale-Deed Challenger And Alleged Later Tenant Out Of Eviction Suit, As Their Claims Are Separate

Respondent No. 1 filed an S.C.C. suit against respondent No. 2 for eviction, arrears of rent and consequential reliefs, asserting a landlord–tenant relationship.

Revisionist No. 1 claimed ownership of the premises and had separately sued to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 1; revisionist No. 2 claimed that revisionist No. 1 inducted him as a tenant from 1 January 2020, after the S.C.C. suit was filed in 2018.

The revisionists’ application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to be impleaded as defendants was rejected by the trial court.

They challenged that order under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits joinder where a person ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication; an interest in the subject property alone does not suffice.

A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed; a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete adjudication.

In eviction proceedings, the dispute ordinarily concerns the landlord–tenant relationship and the grounds for eviction, not an independent third party’s title claim; a plaintiff ordinarily cannot be compelled to join such a third party unless that party’s presence is necessary.

The Court relied on Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, (2018) 2 SCC 352; Shahnaj Begum v. Taj Mohammad, (2019) 134 ALR 800; and the cited Allahabad High Court decisions concerning impleadment in rent or S.C.C. proceedings.

Section 23 of the 1887 Act may be relevant where the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief depends on a title question beyond the Small Causes Court’s competence; a third party’s independent assertion of title alone does not attract it.

Section 25 of the Act governs the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

Revisionist No. 1’s ownership claim and challenge to the sale deed were already the subject of separate civil proceedings and did not need to be decided to resolve the pleaded landlord–tenant dispute.

Revisionist No. 2’s alleged tenancy began after the S.C.C. suit was instituted, and the material relied on did not establish that tenancy; in any event, its existence was distinct from the dispute between the original parties.

The defendant’s reference to Manoj as an occupant or tenant of revisionist No. 1 did not make the revisionists necessary parties.

Their claims could not be used to enlarge the S.C.C. suit into a forum for collateral disputes over title, possession or a separate tenancy.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the trial court’s decision in revision.

It dismissed the revision and left their independent claims—including the validity of the sale deed and revisionist No. 2’s alleged tenancy—open for determination in appropriate proceedings.

No order as to costs was made.