IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (227) Nojws” OF 2011 PETITIONER /Manoj Kumar Shukla, son of (Plain‘Hff) Lafe Chandra Shekhar shukla, aged 68 years, residenf of Kam‘rhi Line, Rajnandgaon. Vs / RESPONDENTS 1. Madan Lal Kawad, son of (Defendant) aged abouT 69 years, ProprieTor‘ of Manoj Cuf ag‘wjn I WGW‘ ¢2s\0¢ La're Kewal Chand Kawad, Piece, Gudaku Line, Raj nandgaon (CG) (Applicanis) 2/; Smf. Poonam Shukla, widow of ' La're Sanfosh $hukla, aged 4O years, Occupa‘rion — Hou3e—wife, residenf of Beside Cen‘rr‘ai Bank, Kamfhi Line, Ward No.23, Tehsii and Dis’rr'ic’r Rajnandgaon (C6). 3. Kum. Dip‘ri Shukla, daugh’rer of Lafe Sanfosh Shukla, aged abou’r 2O years, Occupafion- Sfudenf, residenf of Infronf of Jai Paper Mar’r, Kamfhi Line, Ward No.23, Tehsil and Disfricf Raj nandgaon (CG). w U PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONsTITUTION OF mom l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN‘ J Wfit Petitiwl [$27] N0” “151%?! Petitioner Manoj Kumar Shukla (Plaintiff) Vs Respondents Madan Lal Kawad and others (Defendant) (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Prewnt: Mr. Manish Thakur, counsel for the petitioner None for respondents No. 1 to 3, despite service of notice. h, ORDER Oral (30 June.2011) G, Minhajuddin. J; 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been tiled challenging the legality, validity an‘d propriety of the order dated 14.1.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.16A/10 by Shri Anand Kumar Dhruv. Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon, allowing the application of respondents No. 2 & 3 under Order 1 Rule 1O of the CPC for their impleadment as co-defendants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above mentioned suit has been med under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of respondent No.1/defendant/tenant from the suit premises, based on contract of tenancy. Respondents No. 2 & 3 are claiming themselves to be the co-owner of the suit accommodation along with the petitioner/plaintiff and on that basis, they had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for their impleadment. He has further contended that by allowing the said application, respondents No. 2 & 3 have been impleaded, which is against the law as the instant suit'is purely an eviction suit CD. ‘on contract of tenancy. He b \W' 4. Copy of the plaint filed in Civil Suit No.16A/10 has been filed with this petition. From perusal of the same, it is clear that the said suit has been filed under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Controi Act, 1961 for eviction of respondent Not/defendant from the suit accommodation. The eviction suit is primariiy based on contract of tenancy and the plaintiff can succeed only if he proves the contract of tenancy between respondent No.1/tenant and himself. Even if, respondent No.2 & 3 are co-owner along with the petitioner/plaintiff of the suit accommodation, then also they are neither necessary nor proper party in the abovementioned suit, which is purely based on contract of tenancy, and therefore, by adding respondents No. 2 & 3 as co-defendants, the scope of the suit cannbt be enlarged. 5. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that by passing the impugned order dated 14.1.2011, the leamed lower Court has definitely committed a jurisdictional error and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. ln the result, the petition is allowed. lmpugned order dated 14.1.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.16A/10 by Shri Anand Kumar Dhruv, Additional District Judge. Rajnandgaon is hereby set aside. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Certified copy as per rules. CD. Sdl- G. Minhajuddin Judge -