SUKUMARI DEBI Vs. RAMDAS GANGULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revisional application by the plaintiff-petitioners under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 2-8-77 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court at Sealdah in T.S. No. 108 of 1975 before him allowing an application by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, Latika Banerjee and Gouri Mukherjee, under Order l, Rule 10 of the Code for being added as co-plaintiffs therein.

(2.) The plaintiffs-petitioners, as landlords, had filed the aforesaid relevant T. S. No. 108 of 1975 before the Court below for eviction of the tenant-defendant-opposite party No. l, Ramdas Ganguli, from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent in respect thereof since the month of Shraban, 1381 B.S., contending, inter alia, that he was a monthly tenant under them at a monthly rental of Rs. 145.00 only, payable according to Bengali Calendar Month. The defendant tenant had entered appearance in the suit and had filed written statement raising a plea of non-joinder of parties. He had also filed applications under Ss. 17(1) and 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for determination of the amount of arrears of rent payable by him, without denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. During the pendency of the suit the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 had filed an application before the learned Munsif under Order l, Rule 10 of the C.P. Code for adding them as co-plaintiffs in the relevant suit on the plea that they are joint owners of the suit premises to the extent of undivided one-third share there in. The learned Munsif by his impugned order dated 2-8-77 had allowed their petition in part directing the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to be added as co-plaintiffs in terms thereof for the reasons recorded therein. Being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Munsif, the plaintiffs petitioners have come up in revision before this Court for appropriate relief on the grounds set forth in the relevant application.

(3.) The point emerging for consideration is whether the learned Munsif was justified in allowing the petition of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 in part, the way he did, in the facts and circumstances of the relevant proceedings.