Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI LALIT KUMAR versus NEEL KANTHESHWAR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Lalit Kumar v. Neel Kantheshwar And Others - WRIT - A No. 20787 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8094 (20 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20787 of 2006

Sri Lalit Kumar

Versus

Neel Kantheshwar and Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J,

Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey appearing for contesting respondent no. 1.

Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 28.3.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoopshahr, Bulandshahr rejecting the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner.

The facts are that respondent no. 1 landlord filed JSCC Suit No. 68 of 1995 for arrears of rent and ejectment. It was pleaded in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by Sri Hari Shankar, the father and husband of defendant/tenants and after his death they inherited the tenancy and hence became tenants. The suit was contested by the tenants by filing written statement. Apart from other pleadings one of the grounds taken was that all the heirs of deceased tenant Hari Shankar have not been impleaded as party. The trial court though noted this objection in its judgment but without considering the same decreed the suit vide order-dated 24.3.2004. Feeling aggrieved, tenant/respondents went up in revision. During the pendency of the revision the petitioner moved an application seeking impleadment on the ground that he was also the heir of deceased tenant Hari Shankar and is liable to be impleaded in the proceedings. The rivisional court vide impugned judgment dated 28.3.2006 dismissed the application on the ground that after the death of tenant, his heirs inherited the tenancy jointly and decree passed against one or some of tenant is binding on non-impleaded tenants also.

Learned counsel for the petitioner without disputing the aforesaid proposition has urged that this doctrine cannot apply when a joint tenant applies for impleadment, and he cannot be non-suited on this ground. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned single judge in the case of Gauri Shankar Gupta Vs. Anita Mishra 2004(54) ALR 81. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 2251 and AIR 2002 SC 804 learned single judge has held that ordinarily after the death of tenants particularly in case of tenancy of non-residential building all the heirs must be impleaded as tenants in ejectment suit.

I am in respectful agreement with a view taken by the learned singe judge.

In view of the above, impugned judgment dated 28.3.2006 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall be impleaded as a party in the revision.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the revisional court is directed to decide the revision expeditiously.

Dt. 20.4.2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.