Third-Party Lessees With Limited Rights Are Not Necessary Parties in Eviction Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

“SCC Suit is between landlord and tenant – questions of title or third-party claims cannot be adjudicated” – In a significant reaffirmation of procedural law governing tenancy disputes, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Revisional Court that set aside the impleadment of third-party lessees in a pending Small Causes Court (SCC) eviction suit.

In Jagdish Prasad v. Pandit Ram Shanker Mishra Trust, Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that third-party lessees with time-bound and conditional lease rights are neither necessary nor proper parties to a summary eviction suit filed by a landlord under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

“In SCC Suit rights of third party are not affected in tenancy dispute. Further, in case the right of any third party is affected, they have full liberty to file an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. There is no legal obligation on the tenant to file it on their behalf.” – [Para 34]

“SCC Court is Not the Forum to Test Title or Third-Party Claims” – Allahabad High Court Emphasizes Limited Jurisdiction of Small Cause Suits

The dispute arose from SCC Suit No. 61 of 2021, filed by the landlord-trust seeking eviction and arrears of rent from the petitioner-tenant, Jagdish Prasad. In defence, the tenant referred to a registered lease deed dated 23.02.2011, executed by the landlord in favour of third-party lessees, and sought to implead them under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

The trial court had initially allowed the impleadment application. However, the landlord approached the Revisional Court, which allowed the revision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The tenant then invoked Article 227 jurisdiction to challenge this remand, insisting that the lessees were necessary parties due to the nature of the lease.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court categorically held:

“Tenancy is admitted by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement and there is no allegation upon the contesting parties. Therefore, the lease deed and third-party rights cannot be tested in SCC proceedings.” – [Para 24]

The Court reiterated that SCC proceedings are summary in nature, governed by Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and are confined to disputes of rent and eviction between the landlord and tenant.

“Plaintiff is Dominus Litis; Cannot Be Compelled to Implead Third Parties Without Legal Necessity” – High Court Cites SC's Kanak Lata Ruling

Referring to the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Kanak Lata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, AIR 2018 SC 682, the Court emphasized the doctrine of dominus litis, observing:

“The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party and without his presence the suit cannot proceed or be effectively decided.” – [Para 32]

It was held that the petitioner, being only a tenant, had no legal authority or standing to file an impleadment application on behalf of the lessees. Notably, the lessees themselves had not approached the Court claiming any right or relief.

“Petitioner is having no right to raise any title dispute, and the alleged aggrieved persons have never approached the court for impleadment. The petitioner cannot set up a third party’s case.” – [Para 11]

Lease with Conditional and Limited Rights Does Not Create Title or Require Impleadment in SCC Suit

The petitioner had relied on State of U.P. v. 14th ADJ, Agra, 2001 AIHC 3396, arguing that the lease in question was akin to a sale deed and that lessees were owners in interest, warranting impleadment.

However, the Court carefully distinguished that precedent, noting that:

“In that case, lease was a perpetual lease, with no repatriation rights, a nominal rent, and conferred complete transfer rights. In contrast, the present lease is time-bound (29 years & 11 months), retains the prosecution rights with the lessor, and imposes explicit restrictions on transfer.” – [Paras 19–20]

The Court also clarified that Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, which permits the transferee of a lessor's interest to step into the lessor’s shoes, was inapplicable, as the lease deed expressly reserved prosecution rights with the landlord.

“Section 109 applies only ‘in the absence of a contract to the contrary’ – here, the contract clearly retains prosecution rights with the first party.” – [Para 22]

Citations Distinguished – Tenant Cannot Derive Standing from Third-Party’s Rights

The petitioner cited several authorities in support of impleadment. The High Court carefully distinguished each one:

• Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam, (2015) 13 SCC 13 – Distinguished on grounds that Section 109 TP Act was overridden by specific lease terms in the present case.

• Prakash Chand v. Arjun Das, 2011 AIR CC 561 – Found inapplicable as that case involved collusion between tenant and landlord, not present here.

• Bhim Sen Wadhwa v. Om Prakash Barra, 2010 SCC OnLine All 980 – Rejected as there, the right to prosecute and recover rent was transferred, unlike in present case.

• Dr. Shyam Chandra Srivastava v. Estate of Savitri Sahni, 2010 SCC OnLine All 855 – Held not relevant as it pertained to succession and title in a regular civil suit, not a summary eviction case.

Lessees Not Necessary Parties – Tenant Cannot Enforce Their Rights in SCC Proceedings

Summarising its findings, the Court held: “Written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant in which tenancy is admitted without any dispute. Further lease deed is time-bound and only limited rights were given to lessee. In SCC suit, lessee would not be necessary party.” – [Para 34]

The Court also reiterated the principle laid down in Shobhit Nigam v. Smt. Batulan, 2017 (1) AWC 1082, and Jeet Kaur v. Balaji Builders, 2001 (2) ARC 98, that questions of title or third-party interest fall outside the SCC court’s purview, and such parties cannot be impleaded unless their presence is essential for adjudication.

“Application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be entertained, therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.” – [Para 35]

The petition under Article 227 was dismissed, upholding the Revisional Court’s order rejecting the impleadment of the third-party lessees.

Date of Decision: October 15, 2025