P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.@mdashBy consent of both parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 8639 of 2009 in O.S. No. 4183 of 2009 passed by the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, dated 07.07.2009.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents are any person acting on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property from dispossessing without due process of law. The first respondent is the proposed defendant and he has filed I.A. No. 8639/2009 requesting to implead the petitioner as the second respondent to the above suit in O.S.4183/209 pending on the file of XV Asst Judge City Civil Court at Chennai. The plaintiff also filed a counter denying all the allegations and also stated that he is not a necessary party. After considering the arguments on either side, the Trial Court has impleaded the petition on the ground that the impleaded person is a necessary party to decide the issue. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court is wrong and without basis and justification. He further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have considered that the proposed defendant, who has filed the petition to implead himself is neither a necessary nor a proper party at all in a suit for bare injunction and also the petitioner has not claimed any relief as against the proposed 3rd party. Further, he contended that the proposed 3rd party''s presence is not at all required for the court to adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. Also the third party/first respondent herein, who is sought to be impleaded has got no direct interest but he has got indirect interest and therefore, he cannot be impleaded as held in the following various judgments.
i. C. Periyaswamy and Anr. v. K. Saraswathy and Anr. reported in 2003(3)-L.W.660 held in Hon''ble High Court, Madras.
ii.
iii.
iv. Sriman Madhwa Sidhanta Onnahini Permanent Nidhi Ltd. v. Sanjay Mohta and Anr. held in Hon''ble High Court, Madras.
v. HBL Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2001 AIHC 4851 held in Hon''ble High Court, Delhi.
Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that the first respondent is the necessary party and the Trial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and came to a right conclusion and hence, the order of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
6. Heard the counsel appearing on either side. The schedule mentioned property situated at Door No. 144, H-Block, Periyar Vegetable Market, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107. The total plinth area is 1200 sq.ft. Out of the 1200 sq.ft., 300 sq.ft on the eastern side in the ground floor and another 300 sq.ft in the first floor were given in tenancy to the first respondent, which was denied by the petitioner/plaintiff. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, out of the 600 sq.ft in the ground floor, 300 sq.ft of the eastern side portion was let out to the petitioner/plaintiff and the remaining 300 sq.ft was let out to one Mr. Baskaran, who is brother of the petitioner/plaintiff. But, there is no tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the second respondent/land lord herein. The first respondent/third party has filed a counter, in which, it is stated that out of the 1200 sq.ft., 600 sq.ft in the ground floor and the same was in tenancy into two portions i.e. 300 sq.ft in the ground floor and 300 sq.ft in the first floor given tenancy to the first respondent. Also, he has filed an agreement of tenancy copy dt.05.12.20089, in which, it is clearly stated that 300 sq.ft in the ground floor and another 300 sq.ft in the first floor given to the first respondent for a monthly rent of Rs. 10,500/-. In view of the serious dispute regarding the tenancy right between the petitioner and the first respondent, the Trial Court was taken the view that it is necessary to implead the first respondent in the suit. Therefore, the Trial Court has correctly exercised the discretion and impleaded the first respondent as second defendant in the suit. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff relied on the number of judgments as cited above. I am not going to the each of the judgment and those judgments are entirely different from the facts of the case. Under these circumstances, I don''t find any error or illegality in the order of the Trial Court as to warrant interference. Further, It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order and the finding rendered by the Trial Court is based on the valid material and evidence. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with law and the same is hereby confirmed.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed.
