RICHARD LEEversusGIRISH SONI AND ANR.

                        [2017) l S.C.R. 665


                          RICHARD LEE                                   A
                                 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
                                                                        c
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        D
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
                                                                        E
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
                                                                        F
2017.
    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          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:
B
            "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
           RICHARD LEE v. GIRISH SONI AND ANR.                                667
                      [KURIAN, J.)

      and are carrying on the business in the name of Mis. KK Lee             A
      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            B
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         c
      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 1IR2 will not
      create the relationship of landlord and tenant. For creation of
      relationship of landlord and tenant must be at ad-idem. Ex.AW 1I
      RI is of no help to the respondent as in my considered view there       D
      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             E
      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           F
      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         G
order passed by the Rent Controller. The said order was challenged by
the appellant before the High Court, leading to the impugned order.
    5. The High Court has concurred with the Appellate Authority. Thus,
aggrieved, the present appeal.
                                                                              H
668                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] I S.C.R.



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.
             RICHARD LEE v. GJRISH SONI AND ANR.                                 669
                        [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.