Supreme Court: property buyers are necessary parties in tenancy rights suits

The core issue is the rejection of the appellants' application to be impleaded as defendants in that suit.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Rasilaben and another; Respondents: Dinesh Deumal Harani and others; Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

What the court decided

• Set aside the order of the trial court and the High Court that rejected the appellants' application for impleadment.
• Allowed the application for impleadment, directing that the appellants be impleaded as defendants in the underlying suit (RCS No.486 of 2006).
• Allowed the Civil Appeal with parties to bear their own costs.
• Clarified that the underlying suit must be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations in this judgment.

Also in the document

• The Court held that the earlier rejection of an impleadment application by the appellants' predecessor was for technical reasons (non-prosecution after death) and not on merits, thus not precluding the current application.
• The Court found that the trial court misdirected itself by ignoring the principal relief sought in the plaint, which was a declaration of the plaintiff's status as a tenant-occupier against the property owner.
• The Court determined that the appellants, as the current owners of the property, had sufficient legal interest to defend the suit and were therefore necessary parties.