Mahiuddin Tarafdar vs Buddhadev Halder and Others

Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J.—The instant revisional application is taken up for hearing at the motion stage and the same is being opposed by the Caveator. The said revisional application is directed against an order by which the application under Order 1, Rule 10, Sub-Rule (2) of the CPC has been rejected by the concerned Munsif. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order on the footing that he has subsisting interest in the suit property and, according to him, as such, his client should be added as a party.

It is salient to refer to the plaint of the connected suit from which it appears that the suit is for eviction of the defendants and the same is under Transfer of Property Act as the said land is situated in a Panchayat area admittedly beyond the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The entire controversy in the pending suit is in respect of eviction of a tenant from the suit property by a landlord and accordingly it does not partake of the character of a suit for eviction. In the plaint of the suit Itself, there hats been a reference in paragraph 9 that it was transferred in favour of the Instant petitioner illegally and the same has been attempted to be repelled in the salient paragraph of the written statement where the defendants have set up the plea that the revisional petitioner is only employed to supervise the running of the shop in the suit property.

In the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. before the learned Court of Munsif a reference was made with regard to an identure which was registered at Janai Sub-Registry Office on 26th May, 1983.

The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner referred to the aforesaid indenture. It appears from the perusal of the same that by the said instrument the shop in question has been attempted to be transferred where there was a subsisting tenancy. It is needless to mention that tenancy is not capable of being transferred in the manner in which it has been purported to be done and by the said instrument no lien can be claimed in favour of the revisional petitioner in respect of his locus standi in the suit property. The entire controversy in the pending lies is in respect of a question of eviction and further determination of the question of relationship between landlord and tenant.

Mr. Alok Kr. Biswas, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Caveator, while opposing the said revisional application has referred to a decision reported in the case of Samirendra Nath Keer & Anr. v Debi Prasanna Ghosh & ors. reported in AIR 1978 (2)(CLJ) 274 wherein Anil Kr. Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was) has held that sub-tenant has no independent right and he is not a necessary party in a suit for eviction.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred two decisions reported in the case of Manuddin Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others, and also the case of Rambuddi Veeraswamy Vs. Rambuddi Jangammayya and Others, and also the case of Narahari Mohanti and Others Vs. Ghanashyam Bal and Others, All these decisions are under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. to the effect that such an addition of party may be necessary in order to effectually and completely adjudicate and decide all issues involved in the suit. Here, the only questions involved in the suit are the question of eviction and relationship between the parties and jural locus standi as plaintiff and defendant and no question of eviction is involved. The Claim of lien in respect of possession of the suit property does not confer the authority on a party to have locus standi in the suit property as a tenant and possession of whatsoever nature is something which is to be delinked from the concept of tenancy altogether In the instant case, it has been pointed out by the revisional petitioner that he has an independent right of tenancy or off shoot flowing from the same. 1 rely upon the decision of this Court as reported in 1978(2)(CLJ) at page 274(supra) and I am also in respectful agreement with the view expressed therein that a subtenant in a suit fur eviction under whatever Act is not a necessary party and, as such, entry of such person is not required for effective and complete adjudication of the controversy which comes within the range of the determination of the compass of controversy in the pending lis before the Trial Court.

As such, I am of the view that the learned Munsif in the Trial acted within the bounds of his jurisdiction by rejecting the said petition for addition of party on proper reading of the provisions of Order 1. Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. as otherwise it will lead to unnecessary addition of parties and multiplication of litigation beyond the range of compass of controversy.

The revisional application, thus, is rejected on contest and the order passed by the learned Munsif, which is under challenge, is hereby sustained. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.