Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., allowed the petition which challenged the order of the trial court whereunder the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the wife of Defendant 1 was rejected.

The facts of the case were that the plaintiffs-petitioners had instituted the suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession impleading the wife of the defendant as Defendant 2.

The contention of Mr A.P. Bose, Advocate for the petitioners, was that a part of the suit land had been alienated to the wife of the defendant. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs after the written statement was filed. The hearing of the suit had not begun. The intervenor was a necessary party to the suit.

The counsel for defendants Mr S. Udgata, submitted that the written statement was filed in the year 2011. But then, the petition for impleadment was filed after a gap of five years. The intervenor was neither necessary nor proper party to the suit.

The Court relied on the case of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886, wherein the Apex Court had held that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to movable or immovable property. The suit scheduled land had been alienated to the wife of the defendant. In view of the same, the intervenor was a necessary party to the suit thus the petition was allowed. [Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. Ranjit Kumar Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 436, decided on 19-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.M. Dhavale, J. dismissed a second appeal filed against the order made in first appeal wherein it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim damages for wrongful possession of rented premises by the defendant.

The plaintiffs were owners of the subject property which was let out to Nizam Government which handed it over to Zila Parishad. In the year 1990, Zila Parishad terminated its own tenancy and directed its officials yo handover the possession of the property to plaintiffs. However, this direction was not complied with. It was also an admitted fact that plaintiffs did not take any step to recover the possession of the property and were now directly before the Court claim damages for wrongful possession by Zila Parishad.

Question before the Court was “Whether the landlord would be entitled for damages after termination of tenancy if he does not take any step for recovery of possession for more than 12 years after termination?”

The High Court referred to Chander Kali Bai v. Jagdish Singh Thakur, (1977) 4 SCC 402 wherein it was observed, “if a tenant continues in possession after termination of contractual tenancy, he would not be liable for damages till the decree for eviction is passed.” In the instant case, no decree for eviction was passed. The tenant Zila Parishad itself terminated the tenancy. In such case, the landlord plaintiffs were bound to file suit for possession. He could not directly file suit for damages for the amount not agreed under the contract. Furthermore, damages by way of mesne profits can be awarded under Order 20 Rule 12 only from the date of decree for possession for the period for which the possession is wrongfully retained in spite of the decree. In such view of the matter, the second appeal was dismissed. [Arvind v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6069decided on 10-12-2018]