Heard learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner and the learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondents.
By the impugned order dated 04.08.2018, passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 2009 (Hansh Raj Vs. Amar Singh) application 93 Ga filed by the defendant-tenant/petitioners for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was dismissed against which the defendant-tenant/petitioners filed a Civil Revision No.08 of 2018, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.05.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar.
Aggrieved with these two orders the defendant-tenant/petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The sole case of the petitioner is that Sohan Lal Narang was the original tenant and after his death the tenancy was succeeded by the petitioner and his mother Smt. Kailash Narang but without impleading Smt. Kailash Narang the S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 2009 has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, due to non-joinder of necessary party the plaint was liable to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondents supports the impugned orders.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.
Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the defendant-tenant/petitioner himself has filed Misc. Case No.122 of 2008 (Amar Singh Vs. Hansh Raj) with respect to the disputed shop and in the plaint of the said case No.122 of 2008, he himself has stated that he is alone tenant of the shop in question. Certified copy of the order (paper No.41 Ga), passed in the aforesaid Misc. Case No.122 of 2008 was brought on record before the court below. Thus, both the courts below have found that according to own admitted case of the defendant-tenant/petitioner he is the alone tenant. Therefore, there was no illegality in arraying the petitioner alone as defendant in S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 2009. Both the courts below have found that the Application 93 Ga filed by the defendant-tenant/petitioner is fully merit less.
I do not find any error of law in the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the Misc. Case No. 122 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner in which he admitted himself to be the alone tenant of the disputed shop. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the petition. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Since the defendant-tenant/petitioner no.1 appears to have abused the process of court and is not allowing the S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 2009 to be decided by the courts below, therefore, in the interest of justice it is directed that the concerned court below shall decide the S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 2009 (Hansh Raj Vs. Amar Singh) in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within eight months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In the event, the defendant-tenant/petitioner seeks any adjournment and the court intends to grant adjournment then the adjournment may be granted subject to payment of cost of not less than Rs.1000/-.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019/vkg