Sikha Bhattacharyya vs Somnath Bhattacharjee

Harish Tandon, J.—This revisional application is directed against an order No. 15 dated 2nd December, 2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (North) in Title Suit No. 179 of 2007 whereby and whereunder an application for addition of party is rejected.

This is a suit simpliciter for eviction of a monthly tenant under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The tenants have raised a dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant in an application u/s 7(2) of the said Act.

The said application is yet to be decided and disposed of by the Trial Court.

At this juncture, an application is filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC praying for their additions on the strength of the assertion that they are co-owner in respect of the property.

According to the plaintiffs/opposite parties, the petitioner''s marriage is not valid and she is nothing but a concubine.

While considering the said application for addition of party, the Court has held that the marriage claimed by the petitioner is void and the petitioner''s have no right, title and interest in respect of the property-in-question.

The Trial Court has acceded its jurisdiction in deciding the status and title while considering an application for addition of party in the suit for eviction of a monthly tenant.

By such addition the simply suit of eviction cannot be converted into the complex suit of title.

The issue involved in the said eviction suit is whether the monthly tenant is liable to be evicted on the grounds enumerated therein.

It is a settled law that a co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction against the tenant (See Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak and Others,

What is tried to contend by the petitioner is that they do not want to evict the tenant and the plaintiff/opposite party cannot deny there title in respect of a property. A point is sought to be taken that a co-owner can maintain the suit for eviction subject to the other co-owners do not object to it. By drawing inspiration from: such bald proposition, it is sought to be contended that if other co-owner intends to arrest the action, they should be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit, if not as co-plaintiffs.

The introduction or addition of any third party to spouse his or their own cause in a suit of such nature is not permissible.

Thus, I do not find that the petitioners are the necessary or a proper party so as to be added as the co-defendant in the said suit for eviction but it is equally true that the Court while considering an application for addition should not have travelled to decide the status of the parties sought to be added in the proceeding.

Thus, the observations of the Trial Court in relation to the status of the petitioner are not sustainable.

The finding of the Trial Court, so far as it relates to the status of the petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside. The remaining portion of the order is not interfered with.

However, the dismissal of an application for addition shall not prevent the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of grievance.

The revisional application is thus disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.