GHANSHYAM DAS AGARWAL Vs. SUMITA DEVI VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications are directed against different orders passed by the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No.99 of 2005. By the first application being C.O. No.2638 of 2010, the plaintiff has challenged the order nos.44 dated March 25, 2010 and the order no.47 dated May 7, 2010 thereby rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. giving liberty to the plaintiff to file a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The other application is also filed by the plaintiff and is also directed against the order no.52 dated June 22, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No.99 of 2005 thereby rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Since, the two applications have arisen out of the same ejectment case and they are very must related to each other, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted the said case against the opposite party for eviction on the ground of default and reasonable requirement before the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah (learned Civil Judge, Junior Division). THE opposite party is contesting the said ejectment case by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. THE case was at the stage of further peremptory hearing. At that time, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint and for addition of party, contending inter alia, that the opposite party has inducted sub-tenants in the premises in case as described in the ejectment case and this is a good ground for ejectment of the opposite party.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, when the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for addition of the sub-tenants as defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 contending that the sub-tenants are in exclusive possession of the premises in case. The defendant / opposite party raised objection that the sub-tenants could not be the necessary parties.