Sanjay Govil vs Manish Mathur And 2 Others

1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.02.2019 whereby an application moved by the private respondent no.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. has been allowed. Further, the order dated 27.02.2026 has also been assailed whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the tenant of the disputed premises. The private respondent nos.1 and 2 are the owners/landlords of the said property. It is further urged that initially the father of private respondent nos.1 and 2 had instituted a SCC suit no. 41/2001 which later was renumbered as Case No.210 of 2017. During pendency of the proceedings, the original landlord Sri Rajendra Prasad Mathur had left for his heavenly abode and thereafter his legal heirs i.e. private respondent nos.1 and 2 were substituted. Now during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, respondent no.1 is said to have sold the property to the respondent no.3. In the aforesaid background, the respondent no.3 had moved an application seeking his impleadment in the said proceedings which has been opposed by the petitioner/the tenant.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in a SCC suit, the only two relevant parties are the landlord and the tenant. Admittedly the respondent nos.1 and 2 are the landlords/owners and respondent no.3 who has claimed to purchase the property from them is neither a proper nor a necessary party and in a SCC suit he has no right to be impleaded. The trial court has committed an error in ignoring this aspect and failed to consider the dictum of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanaklata Das and others vs. Naba Kumar Das and others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352 and a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jeet Kaur and another vs. Bala Ji Builders and others, decided on 14.05.2019 in SCC Revision No.61 of 2019.

5. It has also been urged that even the revisional court has not taken due notice of the facts, including the decision cited by the petitioner.

6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

7. It is not disputed that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were the owners/landlords. There is apparently no dispute in so far as the identity of the owners/landlords are concerned as the petitioner himself admits that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are the owners/landlords. In the event that any of the owners/landlords have transferred the property in favour of respondent no. 3, the same shall have no impact on the rights of the petitioner, who is apparently the tenant. In case the property which is sold out and any of the original landlord/owners may have any grievance, it is for them to agitate their rights between themselves. However, the tenant does not have any right to espouse the cause of the owner/landlord when there is no challenge or dispute between the owners and the subsequent purchaser. The tenant/petitioner appears to be delaying the proceedings by raising such frivolous objections.

8. In the given circumstances, even if respondent no. 3 is impleaded as one of the parties, he merely steps into the shoes of the alienating landlord, i.e. respondent no. 1, and in any case, they continue to remain on record, including private respondent no. 2.

9. As far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Kanaklata Das and Others (supra) is concerned, the proposition laid down therein cannot be disputed; however, the fact remains that none of the circumstances or principles referred to in paragraph 11 thereof come to the aid of the petitioner as the facts of the instant case are different.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the decision of Jeet Kaur and another (supra) which is based on the decision of Kanaklata Das and others (supra) for the very same reason is also not applicable.

11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

May 7, 2026

Renu/-