Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the tenants (applicants) against the concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench in favor of the landlords (respondents). The property in question was originally let out to the applicants' father and his brother, who later divided the tenancy and occupied separate rooms (Room Nos. 3 and 3A). The respondents filed R.A.E. & Suit No.344/599 of 2009 against Smt. Shaikh Naboota, the wife of the deceased original tenant and mother of the applicants, seeking eviction from the portion occupied by her family. The trial court decreed the suit on 28 March 2013, and the appeal (Appeal No. 59 of 2013) was dismissed on 30 January 2018. The applicants then filed the present revision. The main legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable against only one cotenant when the tenancy was allegedly joint. The applicants argued that the suit should have been filed against all cotenants, relying on a Division Bench judgment of the Kolkata High Court in Uma Devi Khanna v. Ava Rani Das. The respondents contended that the objection was not raised at the trial stage and that the suit was maintainable. The High Court held that the plea of non-joinder was not taken in the written statement or at any earlier stage, and therefore cannot be raised for the first time in revision. The court also noted that the other cotenant was not a necessary party as the suit was for eviction from the specific portion occupied by the applicants' mother. The court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision application with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Non-Joinder of Necessary Party - Objection must be raised at earliest opportunity - The applicants raised the plea of non-joinder of a cotenant for the first time in revision, not in the trial court or first appeal - Held that such objection cannot be entertained at this stage as it was not pleaded earlier and no prejudice was shown (Paras 5-6). B) Rent Control - Joint Tenancy - Suit against one cotenant maintainable - The suit was filed only against the applicants' mother, but the other cotenant was not impleaded - The court held that in the absence of any prejudice or challenge to the maintainability at the trial stage, the suit is not bad for non-joinder - The decree for eviction against the tenant in possession is valid (Paras 5-7). C) Civil Revision - Scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC - Limited to jurisdictional error or perversity - The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a patent illegality - Held that no such error exists in the impugned judgments (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for eviction against one cotenant is maintainable when the tenancy is joint, and whether the objection of non-joinder can be raised for the first time in revision.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Non-joinder of necessary party must be raised at earliest opportunity
- Joint tenancy does not bar suit against one cotenant if no prejudice
- Civil Revision Application limited to jurisdictional error or perversity
