The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. decided on 25.01.2018 that 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 the Ejectment Suit, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying therein that he may be allowed to become the co-plaintiff along with the appellants. Respondent No. 1 sought his impleadment alleging that he is a member of the appellants’ family and being so, has a right, title and interest not only in the suit premises but also in other family properties as one of the co-owners.
The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code thereby permitting him to become co-plaintiff in the Ejectment Suit filed by the appellants against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for their eviction from the suit premises.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while allowing the Appeal and by setting aside the order of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held made various observations while taking into the consideration well settled principles of law. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that 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. Whereas, 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’s-tenant’s eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds.
By relying upon the judgment of Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal, 1995(6) SCC 580, the Hon’ble Court further observed that 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.
By further relying on Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee & Anr., 2005(8) SCC 140, it was held that 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.