RICHARD LEE v. GIRISH SONI AND ANR.

[2017) l S.C.R. 665 A ## RICHARD LEE v. ## GIRISH SONI AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1345 of2017) FEBRUARY 02, 2017 B **[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A, M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]** _Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order I, Rule 10-Impleadment_ - - _as necessary party Eviction petition by respondent Application for impleadment as necessary party by appellant alleging that he was partner in a firm-tenant in the shop in dispute_ - _Application_ - _allowed by Rent Controller However, set aside by tribunal and High Court_ - _On appeal, held: For proper adjudication, both the firm and all its partners should be on the array of parties as proper party_ - _They are not necessary parties from the point of view of the Eviction Petition_ - _However, the Court has a duty to see whether the presence of the proper parties would facilitate the complete determination of the matter in dispute_ - _In view of the power under Order I, Rule JO,_ suo motu _invoked by this Court, the firm and the partners are impleaded by this Court in the proceedings_ - _Parties directed to appear before the Ren/' Controller who would adjudicate all the questions including the question as to whether there was a partnership as tenant_ - _Eviction petition having been pending since 2010, Rent Controller to dispose of the same expeditiously_ - _Rent Control and Eviction._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1345 of 2017. c D E F From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM (M) No. 1217 of2013. C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ankit Sahni, Dhruv D., Ms. Ambika Singh Pratiyush, Jose Abraham, Advs. for the Appellant. G Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Rohit Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **KURIAN, J.** I. Leave granted. H 665 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 1 S.C.R. A B 2. The simple issue that arises for consideration in this case is whether the appellant should be a proper party in the Eviction Petition _No.18120_ I 0 filed by the respondents herein before the Rent Controller, Delhi. The appellant herein moved an application for impleadment as a necessary party in the eviction petition. Paragraph 3 of the application for impleadment filed under Order l Rule I 0 reads as follows: - "3. That the petition filed by the petitioenrs is false. It is submitted that the shop in dispute was let out by Shri Chuni Lal Soni to a partnership firm Mis: K.K. Lee with effect from November, 1963 Mis. K.K. Lee was a partnership firm comprising of three brothers namely Shri Lee Queth Khong, Shri Lee Shearn Khong and Lee - c Aches Khong as its partners. Shri Chuni Lal Soni had been recovering rent from the said partnership firm from the inception of tenancy till he continued to recover the rent, through _Ale_ Payee cheques issued from the Bank account of the said partnership firm, Shri Chuni Lal Soni somewhere in 1968-69 called upon the - D said. partnership firm to pay rent to Dr. P.C. Soni, his brother. The said partnership firm thereafter paid the rent to Dr. P.C. Soni by way of cheques from its bank account. Dr. P.C. Soni however did not issue any receipt after receiving the said cheques. The shop in disputes was initially let out at _Rs.3501-_ per month. Thereafer somewhere in 1983 on an understanding and contract entered - E into between Dr. P.C. Soni and the said partnership firm _Mis._ KK Lee the rent was increased to _Rs.5001-_ per month. It is pertinent to mention here that initially Shri L. Queth Khong started the business in the name of _Mis_ K.K. Lee as its sole proprietor at 28A, Khan Market New Delhi. He took Shri Le Shearn Khong - F and Shri Lee Aches Khong, his brothers as partners in the said business with effect from 1.11.1960. The said partnership took the shop in dispute on rent from Shri Chuni Lal Soni and shifted its business to the shop in dispute. Shri L. Queth Khong was never a tenant in the shop in dispute in his personal capacity. All the said three brothers have died. The applicant is the son of Shri Lee - G Shearn Khong and is one of the tenants in the shop in disputes. The applicant is carrying on business in the shop in dispute along with the Shri Sean Wee Lee _Slo_ Late Shri Lee Queth Khong, Shri Kenneth Lee, slo Shri Late Lee Aches Khong and Mr. Beryl A Lee, _wlo_ Shri Late Lee Shearn Khong as partners of _Mis._ K.K. - H Lee. All the said partners are the tenants in the shop in dispute 667 # RICHARD LEE v. GIRISH SONI AND ANR. [KURIAN, J.) and are carrying on the business in the name of _Mis._ KK Lee therein. It is pertinent to mention here that the rent receipts were being issued in the name ofKK Lee by Shri Chuni Lal Soni." 3. It is the contention of the respondents that there is no tenancy in favour of the firm in the name and style K.K. Lee as has already been found by the Rent Controller in a previous proceedings as per order dated 24.l 0.1998 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, when the respondents initiated the eviction procedings againstthe original tenants Shri L. QuethKhong. Paragraph I 0 of the said order, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: "10. The reliance of the respondent on paymentofrent by account payee cheque and encashment by the petitioner is of no help as payment of rent will not create the relations oflandlord and tenant. Reliance is placed on illegible. Similarly, Ex.AW 1 _IR2_ will not create the relationship of landlord and tenant. For creation of relationship of landlord and tenant must be at ad-idem. Ex.AW 1 _I_ RI is of no help to the respondent as in my considered view there is inter pollution/cutting in the word Mr. and it has been made as _Mis_ from Mr. this observation of mine is substantiated if we perused Ex.AW113 to Ex.AWll29. All these counter foils ofrent receipts on the bottom categorically contained the signatures of the tenant. Mr. L. QuethKhong has signed these receipts as a tenant in his individual capacity. Had the firm been the tenant, then he must have signed on behalfoftheiirm. Had the intention of Mr. L. QuethKhong have to made the firm _Mis_ K.K. Lee is a tenant, then this fact must have found mention in the lease deed. The firm was in existence since I 960 and the tenancy was created in 1963. Had the firm been tenant, then Mr. L. QuethKhong must have signed as partner of the firm and not in his individual capacity." 4. The Rent Controller allowed the application for impleadment .• which was challenged by the respondents herein in Revision Petition before the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, leading to the impugned order. A B c D E F G 5. The High Court has concurred with the Appellate Authority. Thus, aggrieved, the present appeal. H 668 [2017] I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A 6. Having extensively heard Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that for properly adjudicating the issue before the Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No.18/20 I 0, in view of the contentions taken by the parties, both the firm in the name and style ofK.K. Lee and all its partners should be on B the array of parties as proper party. No doubt, they are not necessary parties form the point of view of the Eviction Petitioners, but the Court has a duty to see whether the presence of the proper parties would facilitate the complete determination of the matter in dispute. The following are the names of the partners of the firm: c 1. Mr. Richard Lee u. Mr. Sean Wee Lee 111. Mr. Kenneth Lee iv. Mrs. Beryl Lee D 7. The firm as represented by its managing partner, if any, or duly authorized person amongst the partners to represent the firm will stand impleaded as additional respondent and all the partners will stand impleaded also as additional respondents. We leave open all the questions, to be adjudicated before the Rent Controller including the questions as to whether there was a partnership as tenant and being an issue once E adjudicated and concluded before the Rent Controller, whether that finding is conclusive as far as the present proceedings are concerned. 8. In view of the power under Order I, Rule I 0 suo motu invoked by us, it is not necessary for the parties to file separate application, since we have ourselves impleaded the firm and the partners in the proceedings. F We direct all the parties to appear before the Rent Controller, Delhi on 1.3.2017. Within two weeks from today, the respondents will file an . amended memo of parties before the Rent Controller. The additionally impleaded respondents, if they chose to file written statement, will file it either jointly or individually, within a period of thirty days from today. G 9. Till the complete and effectual adjudication, the interim order passed by this Court on 13.1.15 with regard to deposit ofRs.75,000/per month will continue unless it is duly varied by an appropriate forum. I 0. We make it clear that the Rent Controller will pass appropriate orders with regard to the release of the amount when the petition is H finally disposed of. 669 RICHARD LEE v. GJRISH SONI AND ANR. [KURIAN, J.] > ·I I. We direct the Rent Controller, having regard to the fact that the A eviction petition has been pending since 20 I 0, to dispose of the same expeditiously and in any case within six months from the date of the first appearance. The appeal is disposed of, as above. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 13. There shall be no orders as to costs. B **Nidhi Jain** **Appeal disposed of.**