Excerpts from judgement: Sanyogta Prakash Vs. Bibi Dhira Bala and anr. – Court Judgment
Whether the petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the eviction suit which is pending between respondent No.1 and 2 as landlord and tenant. The application has been filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading her as a necessary party.[para 12]
11. Significantly, two facts are important; firstly, suit for eviction is pending as per the provisions of Rent Control Act. before the rent controller vide eviction petition no 15/2012 between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 as landlord and tenant respectively Secondly, suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement to sell dated 1-1-1971 is also pending before the civil court between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Pertinently, both the suits are in respect of the same property; and the petitioner is the wife of the respondent No.2.
15. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance as per the provisions of Specific Relief Act against respondent no1 with respect to the same property and, therefore, if any right or interest exist in favour of the petitioner and against respondent no1 are duly protected under the Act mentioned above.
HELD:the apprehension of a future cause of action in favour of petitioner is not a valid reason for arraying such person as a proper party in the existing suit and the same is not contemplated or engrafted in the concept of parties to suits.
when the tenant raises a contention that there was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant to sell the building to the tenant, whether it would constitute denial of title of the landlord ?
a case decided by the Kerala High Court in RC Rev. No.48 of 2005, titled as K.V. Narayanan Murti Vs. Thankamma Sebastian, decided on 19.05.2005, wherein it is held as under:
An agreement to sell does not invest any title in the tenant; nor does it divest the title of the landlord. The title would pass to the proposed transferee only on execution of the sale deed. The agreement to sell by itself would not terminate the landlord-tenant relationship. Even if a suit for specific performance filed by the tenant-transferee is pending, that by itself would not be a ground to oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court. So long as the tenant has not shed his character as a tenant, he cannot take shelter under the agreement for sale and contend that the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction…………”[para 14]