AMLA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. RANJIT KUMAR CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are owners of the premises which was leased out to one Raj Kumar Choudhury, who died in the year 1969. The defendant-respondent is one of the sons of Raj Kumar Choudhury. On 2-12-1970, the landlord executed a fresh second lease in favour of respondent Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, for a period of one year. In the year 1984, the landlord filed a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant on the grounds of his bona fide requirement of the premises as well as on default in payment of rent in respect of the premises in dispute. In the suit, relief for recovery of arrears of rent was also claimed. The trial court substantially dismissed the suit filed by the landlord. However, learned Munsif decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs 245. Aggrieved, the landlord preferred an appeal before the Assistant District Judge. The lower appellate court, having found that the need set up by the landlord was bona fide and, further, the tenant has committed default in payment of rent, decreed the suit after setting aside the trial court's judgment. The tenant thereafter filed a revision against the lower appellate court's order. The High Court, in revision, set aside the order and judgment of the lower appellate court on the ground that since all the heirs of the original tenant, namely. Raj Kumar Choudhury were not impleaded in the suit, the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the suit filed by the landlord stood dismissed. It is against this judgment the appellants are in appeal before us.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised three submissions before us. The first submission is that, assuming after the death of Raj Kumar Choudhury all his heirs inherited tenancy rights, in such a case all the heirs became joint tenants of the premises in dispute and impleadment of one of the tenants was sufficient to represent the interest of the remaining joint tenants. Therefore, the suit could not have been dismissed on this ground.

(3.) The second submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that in any event of the matter, after the lease was executed on 2-12-1970, the tenancy rights of the other heirs impliedly stood surrendered in favour of the landlord and, therefore, the view taken by the High Court that the suit filed by the landlord was bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties suffers from legal infirmity.