The Allahabad High Court has held that a third person asserting an independent title over a rented property does not become a necessary or proper party to an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court only because that title clashes with the landlord's.

It held that impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to carry a separate title dispute into a suit limited to the landlord-tenant relationship and the grounds for eviction.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“Even otherwise, the mere fact that a defendant may set up the title of a third person, or may dispute the plaintiff's title by referring to such third person, does not make that third person a necessary or proper party. Otherwise, the scope of an eviction proceeding could be enlarged merely by the nature of the defence raised by the tenant.”

Respondent no. 1 sued respondent no. 2 before the Small Causes Court, Aligarh for his eviction from a shop and arrears of rent, claiming ownership under a sale deed dated 05.09.2017. Petitioner sought impleadment, claiming title under an earlier sale deed dated 19.06.2017 and alleging that the later deed was obtained from her by fraud. Her suit for its cancellation, Original Suit No. 485 of 2018, is pending.

Her application was rejected by the Small Causes Court and her revision was dismissed. Before the High Court, she argued that the tenant had named her as the landlady and that a finding in the eviction suit could prejudice her rights.

“The determination of the petitioner's claim would necessarily involve examination of the validity, execution and legal effect of the rival sale deeds, as also the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Those questions constitute the subject matter of the petitioner's independently instituted civil suit. An application for impleadment cannot be employed as a means of bringing such an independent title dispute before the Small Causes Court or of securing its adjudication, directly or indirectly, in proceedings of limited jurisdiction.”

The Court observed that impleadment turns on whether a person's presence is needed to decide the dispute actually before the court, not on the size of the interest claimed in the property.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kanaklata Das and others v. Naba Kumar Das and others, which held that landlord and tenant are the necessary parties to an eviction suit, and its own ruling in Manish Bansal vs. Jagdish Prasad Mittal & 7 Others, the Court held that petitioner's claim would require a trial of the rival sale deeds and the fraud allegations, which belonged in her civil suit.

“A proceeding concerning the landlord-tenant relationship cannot be enlarged merely because a person claiming an independent title seeks to enter the proceedings and have that claim examined. Such a claim is required to be pursued before the competent forum in appropriately instituted proceedings.”

On the tenant's pleadings, the Court noted the revisional court's finding that he had accepted respondent no. 1 as his landlady in his amended written statement, and held

“The petitioner's apprehension that an order passed in the S.C.C. suit may prejudice her independent rights also cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for her impleadment. The remedy of impleadment is not available merely to enable a third party to protect an independent title in property when that title is not required to be adjudicated for granting the relief sought in the suit. The petitioner's independent rights remain capable of being adjudicated in the civil suit already instituted by her.”

Holding that her fear of prejudice was no ground for impleadment, since her rights could be decided in the civil suit, the Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that it had expressed no view on the validity of either sale deed.

Case Title: Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Smt. Omwati Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

Click Here To Read/Download Order