IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16891 of 2011 Arbind Poddar Versus Anil Kumar Mahto & Ors With CWJC No.17585 of 2011 Arbind Poddar Versus Anil Kumar Mahto & Ors With CWJC No.18570 of 2011 Arbind Poddar Versus Smt.Urmila Devi & Ors ----------- ORDER 08. 08.12.2011 I have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S. Dvivedi on behalf of the petitioners. (2) The plaintiff is the petitioner in all these three applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by Munsif East, Muzaffarpur in Eviction Suit No.7 of 2007, 12 of 2007 and 11 of 2007 respectively whereby the learned Court below allowed the application of the interveners, respondent nos.2 to 7 and they have been made parties in the eviction suit. (3) The learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S. Dvivedi submitted that three Eviction Suits have been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the tenant inducted by him in the suit premises on the ground of default. During the pendency of the said Eviction Suits, the respondent nos.2 to 7 filed the applications for being added as party 2 which has been allowed wrongly by the Court below because the respondent nos.2 to 7 are claiming paramount title against the petitioner. In eviction suit, the question of title cannot be decided. According to the learned senior counsel, the shop premises originally belonged to Vishwanath Prasad Chaudhary. The building was in dilapidated condition, therefore, Vishwanath Prasad Chaudhary entered into contract with the plaintiff for construction of a double storied new building after demolishing the old one. Accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 12.04.1994 between them wherein it was agreed that the plaintiff will induct and will realize the rent from the tenants. On the basis of the said lease deed and in terms of the said lease deed, the petitioner inducted tenants by executing kirayanama in 1996. Thereafter, Vishwanath Prasad Chaudhary executed a registered patta in favour of the plaintiff to realize the rent and deal with suit land for indefinite period. According to the kirayanama, the tenants paid rent to the plaintiffs month to month but subsequently, after October 2006, they stopped payment and, therefore, they are defaulter. Accordingly, on these facts, the petitioner filed the eviction suit. The learned counsel submitted that the tenants filed written statement admitting the fact that they were inducted as tenant by the petitioner but because of the terms and conditions of the lease expired after 7 ½ years 3 fixed between Vishwanath Prasad Chaudhary and plaintiff to realize the amount which was invested on construction, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist and then they started payment to the respondent nos.2 to 7. In the said eviction suit, the respondent nos.2 to 7 filed application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for being added as party on the ground that they are the real owner of the property and they challenged the lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by Vishwanath Prasad Chaudhary. The learned Court below without examining the position of law wrongly allowed them to be added as party in the eviction suit. The learned counsel relied upon 1998(2) PLJR 601(Md. Sabir Hussain Siddique vs. Md. Jiyauddin), 2005(2) BBCJ V-346(Arbind Kumar Pal vs. Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa and ors.) and 2002(3) BBCJ 159(Mostt. Shyamapati Devi vs. Mostt. Lalita Devi) and various other decisions. (4) In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not appeared in this writ application. (5) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considered the question that the plaintiff is claiming on the basis of lease deed executed by Vishwanath Prasad Chaudhary and the respondents are challenging the said lease deed on the ground that it is forged document and also observed that whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the rent from the 4 tenant forever and for deciding this question, the interveners are necessary party. Admittedly, the interveners, respondent nos.2 to 7 have filed title suit no.107 of 2002 for declaration that the lease deed dated 12.04.1994 is forged and fabricated and likewise, another title suit no.585 of 2004 has been filed by them for declaration that the other lease deed dated 26.03.1996 is also forged and fabricated. In such circumstances, the question raised by the respondent nos.2 to 7 that the lease deeds are forged and fabricated cannot be decided in the present eviction suit. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff has inducted the defendants as tenant but their defence is that after expiry of 7 ½ years, they started paying rent to the respondent nos.2 to 7. According to the interveners also, their case is that the plaintiff has realized more rent from the tenants than the amount he invested in the building. So far this question is concerned, as to whether plaintiff has realized more rent or less rent cannot be decided in an eviction suit. (5) In 1998(2) PLJR 601, Md. Sabir Hussain Siddique(supra), this Court has held that intervention by third party in eviction suit should not be allowed as it is likely to change the nature of the suit. The issue in the eviction suit is whether the ground of eviction of the defendant-tenant has been proved, the question of title is to be seen only incidentally while examining the 5 landlord tenant relationship. Any intervention by third party, claiming independent title in himself is therefore, bound to change the nature of the suit. It appears that in that case also, intervention application was allowed which was set aside by the High Court. (6) In 2002(3) BBCJ 159, Mostt. Shyamapati Devi(supra), again this Court held that in a suit for eviction, the question of title between two claimants cannot be gone into. The Court has to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant for deciding the question of eviction. It appears that in that case also, the intervention application was allowed which was filed by the intervener claiming title on himself. This Court set aside the order of the trial court. (7) In 2005(2) BBCJ V-346, Arbind Kumar Pal(supra), again this Court held that application for addition of a party claiming title in an eviction suit is not permissible as it would change the nature of the suit from eviction to a suit for declaration of title. (8) In the present case also, from the facts pleaded by the defendant and also the interveners, it is admitted fact that this petitioner inducted the tenants and the tenants were paying the rent to the plaintiff. Therefore, the relationship of the landlord and tenant is admitted. The question raised by the interveners is that the patta or the lease deed is forged and fabricated and 6 that the plaintiff realized more rent than he invested is a foreign question to the eviction suit. Moreover, raising this question, they have already filed the title suits stated above. (9) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the settled proposition of law discussed above, in my opinion, the learned Court below has not exercised the jurisdiction properly and according to law and thereby occasioned failure of justice. (10) In the result, all these three applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the intervention applications filed by the respondent nos.2 to 7 are rejected. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)