1 39 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2227/2007. Kani Ram & Anr. Vs. Navneet Kumar & Ors. Date of Order :: 8th May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Thanvi, for the petitioners. Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, for the respondent. ..... BY THE COURT: The application for impleadment (Annex.4) moved by the petitioners in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as being prosecuted by the respondent No.1 against the respondents Nos. 2 to 3 having been rejected by the learned Trial Court by its order dated 24.01.2007 (Annex.6), the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. It has strenuously been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the approach of the learned Trial Court in rejecting the application on the consideration as if upon impleadment of the petitioners, the suit for eviction would get converted into a suit for title is not correct; that the petitioners are not seeking any inquiry into the title in this suit but have come up only with the submissions that they stand in the capacity of landlord qua the defendants-tenants; that the presence of the applicants on record becomes necessary even in view of the averments as taken by the defendants-tenants in 2 their written statement wherein they have specifically pointed out that the applicants (the petitioners) are the present landlords. Learned counsel emphasized on the submissions that when impleaded as parties to the suit, the petitioners would only join the issue that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between themselves and the defendants-tenants and such relationship does not exist between the plaintiff and the defendants-tenants; and their arise no question of enlargement of scope of the suit. Learned counsel further submitted that even if any question of title is suggested or raised in the proceedings where essentially the relationship of landlord and tenant remains to be considered, such question shall not be decided by the court or the tribunal concerned. The submissions do not lend support to the claim of the petitioners to get impleaded as parties in the suit in question. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff while asserting existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendants-tenants. Even if the defendants have denied subsistence of any such relationship and even if the defendants have suggested somebody else, or for that matter even the petitioners, to be the landlords, that plea remains a plea in defence; and the essential question in the suit shall be about existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The right to 3 relief depends on the decision of such question; and for its determination, even if the petitioners might be considered relevant witnesses in support of the case as set up by the defendants, it cannot be said that the questions involved in this suit cannot effectually be determined in the absence of the petitioners. The learned Trial Court has of course made an observation that the question of title is not gone into in the suit and it is contended by the petitioners that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, and not that of title, is sought to be agitated by them but then, the learned Trial Court has eventually observed that the presence of the applicants is not felt necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.01.2007 reads thus: “Therefore, considering the ratio of law laid down on the subject, the presence of the applicants is not felt necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.” Such observations by the learned Trial Court remain unexceptionable. In whatever form the question is sought to be agitated by the petitioners, such question goes beyond the 4 core question in the suit concerned that remains as to whether their exists or not the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The order as passed by the learned Trial Court refusing the application cannot be said to be contrary to the legal principles and cannot be said to be leading to substantial failure of justice. There does not appear any scope for interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/