Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 862/24
DEEPAK Vs. RAM KARAN MUKHIYA
04.06.2026
Present: None for plaintiff.
Defendant is already proceeded against ex-parte vide
order dated 02.02.2026.
Sh. Yash Kumar, counsel for applicant Durga through VC.
1) Matter is pending for order on application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed
on behalf of applicant Durga/ sister of the defendant.
2) Briefly stated, the present suit for eviction of defendant, recovery of arrears
of rent along with utility charges and mesne profits has been filed by the plaintiff
Deepak Verma against defendant Ram Karan Mukhiya. It is averred by the
plaintiff that he is the owner/ landlord of the property bearing no. WZ-430, B
(bearing khasra no. 1679), Naraina village, 28 (hereinafter referred to as subject
premises) and defendant is a tenant in one room and veranda as shown in the site
plan in the aforesaid subject premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,587/- by virtue of
registered lease deed dated 07.01.2021. However, it is stated that the defendant is
in default in payment of rent, water and electricity charges w.e.f. 16.02.2021.
Hence, on 01.03.2021, plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the suit property.
However, the defendant has still not vacated the same. Hence, the present suit.
3) On service of the defendant through his sister/ applicant on 23.01.2025,
defendant neither filed any WS nor entered appearance. Hence, the defendant was
proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.02.2026. However, the present
Page No. 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
application had been filed by the applicant Durga on 19.03.2025 seeking
impleadment in the present matter.
4) By way of present application, it is contended on behalf of applicant that
the defendant/ brother of the applicant is a resident of Bihar whereas it is the
applicant who is residing at the tenanted premises. It is contended on behalf of the
applicant that the applicant is a necessary party to the present suit as she is
residing in the tenanted premises. It is stated that the defendant, who is the brother
of the applicant, is residing at Bihar and when he had come to Delhi for funeral of
the father, his signatures were taken on the lease deed filed by the plaintiff
through fraud/ misrepresentation. It is also stated that the father of the applicant
was the original tenant and on his demise, the applicant, who alongwith her
children is residing in the tenanted premises. Hence, it is stated that the applicant
is a necessary party and therefore, required to be impleaded in the present matter.
5) Per contra, it is stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the applicant is a proxy
for the defendant since the defendant did not file the WS within the stipulated
period. It is also stated that it is the defendant and not the applicant who is
residing in the tenanted premises. Furthermore, it is stated that since the tenancy is
in the name of the defendant as per the lease deed, therefore, the applicant is
neither necessary nor proper party. Therefore, it is contended that the application
is liable to be dismissed with cost.
6) In rebuttal, counsel for applicant submitted that the application was filed
prior to the closure of right of the defendant.
7) I have already heard the arguments and perused the record.
Page No. 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
8) It is trite to state that plaintiff is the dominus litis of his litigation and
cannot be compelled to fight against the person against whom he does not wish to
fight and against whom, he does not claim any relief. In the present proceedings,
plaintiff does not seek any relief against the applicant. Further, in view of the
judgment of Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. AIR 2018 SC
682, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of
the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. In the present matter, the plaintiff has
filed lease deed dated 07.01.2021 executed between the plaintiff and the
defendant showing that it is the defendant who is the tenant in the premises.
Moreover, it is pertinent to note that during the course of arguments, it is
conceded by the counsel for applicant that the signatures on the lease deed are
that of the defendant herein. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the impugned lease
deed was in fact entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff herein.
9) As far as the question of misrepresentation is concerned, perusal of record
shows that the impugned lease deed is registered. Furthermore, objections qua the
said misrepresentation, if any, are to be taken by the defendant who is executant of
the said lease deed and not the applicant who is a stranger to the said agreement
between the plaintiff and the defendant. Moreover, even if, the version of the
applicant that the father of the applicant and defendant was the original tenant
under the father of the plaintiff is admitted for the sake of arguments, it is
pertinent to note that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision
to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights
devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of the tenancy are the
same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which
devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises. That is the
Page No. 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
position as between the landlord and the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other
words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. Reliance in this regard
is placed upon H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 and Suresh
Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain & Anr, AIR 2018 SC 2708. Therefore, it cannot
be held that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the respondent
being the legal heir of erstwhile tenant can represent the interest of all the joint
tenants. Thus, it is not necessary for the landlord to implead all the legal heirs of
the deceased tenant whether they are living in the property or not.
10) Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the
applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Accordingly, the
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment stands dismissed.
Further, the application of the applicant seeking water supply/ utilities at the
premises is also rendered infructuous and stands disposed off.
11) List for PE on 01.09.2026 and evidence by way of affidavit be filed at
least 15 days prior to NDOH.
Rupinder Singh Dhiman
ACJ-CCJ-ARC/NDD, PHC
New Delhi/04.06.2026
Page No. 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --