Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Ashok Agrawal, a tenant, challenged two orders passed by the trial court: (1) rejecting his preliminary objection that the suit filed by 'Vinkar Bhavan' was not maintainable because 'Vinkar Bhavan' is neither a natural person nor a juridical person; and (2) rejecting his application for dismissal of the proceedings for non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondent, described as 'Vinkar Bhavan, through Dinanath Umaji Pathrabe', had filed an application for fixation of standard rent against the petitioner. The relationship of landlord and tenant was based on a written agreement. The petitioner argued that since 'Vinkar Bhavan' is not a legal entity, no cause of action arises in its favour and the plaint ought to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The respondent contended that 'Vinkar Bhavan' is merely a description of the property and the real plaintiff is the landlord, a natural person. The High Court held that the description 'Vinkar Bhavan' is only a description of the property and the suit is maintainable as the landlord is a natural person. The Court also held that the application for non-joinder of necessary parties was misconceived because the suit was between landlord and tenant for standard rent, and no other party was necessary. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC - Juridical Person - The petitioner-defendant challenged the maintainability of a suit filed by 'Vinkar Bhavan' on the ground that it is neither a natural person nor a juridical person. The Court held that the description 'Vinkar Bhavan' is merely a description of the property and the real plaintiff is the landlord, a natural person, who can maintain the suit. The preliminary objection was rightly rejected. (Paras 3-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties - Order I Rule 10 CPC - The petitioner-defendant sought dismissal of proceedings for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Court held that the application was misconceived as the suit was for fixation of standard rent between landlord and tenant, and no other party was necessary. The trial court's rejection was upheld. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit filed in the name of 'Vinkar Bhavan' (a building name) is maintainable when the plaintiff is neither a natural person nor a juridical person, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the preliminary objection and the application for dismissal for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The orders passed by the trial court and the District Court are upheld.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC
- juridical person
- natural person
- cause of action
- maintainability of suit
- non-joinder of necessary parties
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (11) 77
Writ Petition No.3665/2013
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.R. Agrawal for petitioner; Mr. A. Shelat for respondent
Dr. Ashok S/o Jaikishan Agrawal
Vinkar Bhavan, through Dinanath Umaji Pathrabe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of trial court rejecting preliminary objection as to maintainability of suit and application for dismissal for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of trial court order dated 17.06.2013 rejecting preliminary objection and order dated 17.06.2013 rejecting application for dismissal, and order of District Court dated 02.05.2013 upholding trial court order.
Filing Reason
Petitioner-defendant contended that the respondent 'Vinkar Bhavan' is neither a natural person nor a juridical person and thus cannot maintain the suit for fixation of standard rent.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court rejected preliminary objection on 17.06.2013; District Court upheld that order on 02.05.2013; Trial Court also rejected application for dismissal for non-joinder on 17.06.2013.
Issues
Whether the suit filed in the name of 'Vinkar Bhavan' is maintainable when the plaintiff is neither a natural person nor a juridical person.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for dismissal of proceedings for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The respondent 'Vinkar Bhavan' is neither a natural person nor a juridical person, hence no cause of action arises and the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The application for non-joinder of necessary parties should have been allowed.
Respondent: 'Vinkar Bhavan' is merely a description of the property; the real plaintiff is the landlord, a natural person, and the suit is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
A suit filed in the name of a building (e.g., 'Vinkar Bhavan') is maintainable if the description is merely a property name and the real plaintiff is a natural person who can sue. The preliminary objection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC was rightly rejected. The application for non-joinder of necessary parties was misconceived as the suit for standard rent involves only the landlord and tenant.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge is to the order passed by the Trial Court on 17.06.2013 rejecting the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner-defendant to the maintainability of the suit at the behest of the respondent on the ground that the respondent is neither natural person nor juridical person.
The submission of Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate is that the respondent 'Vinkar Bhavan' is neither juridical person nor natural person to maintain the suit.
Procedural History
The respondent-landlord filed an application for fixation of standard rent against the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner filed a preliminary objection challenging maintainability on the ground that 'Vinkar Bhavan' is not a legal entity. The trial court rejected the objection on 17.06.2013. The petitioner also filed an application for dismissal for non-joinder of necessary parties, which was also rejected on 17.06.2013. The petitioner appealed to the District Court, which upheld the trial court's order on 02.05.2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(a), Order I Rule 10
