SAMIR KUMAR ADHIKARI Vs. ANGSUMAN CHATTERJEE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the Order No. 15 dated September 06, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 14741 of 2014 (originally numbered as Title Suit No. 02 of 2014). By the impugned order, the learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") and added the opposite party no. 2 as the proforma defendant in the said suit.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision in the revisional application are shortly stated as follows.

(3.) The opposite party no. 1 filed the said suit before the learned Court below, claiming a decree for eviction of the petitioner from the suit property. In the plaint it is the case of the plaintiff opposite party no. 1 that his uncle, Anindya Sundar Chatterjee, since deceased was the original tenant in respect of the suit property, under the proforma opposite party no. 2 and he used to reside at the suit property along with his said uncle. After the death of his uncle, the plaintiff opposite party became the tenant in respect of the suit property under the opposite party no. 2 and the latter accepted rent from the plaintiff opposite party. He, however, allowed the defendant petitioner to occupy one room of the suit property on temporary basis, without any consideration and subsequently the defendant petitioner has wrongfully and illegally taken possession of the entirety of the suit property. The defendant petitioner is contesting the said suit. In his written statement, the defendant petitioner alleged that he is the monthly tenant in respect of the suit property under the landlord Souveek Hazra, the opposite party no. 2 in this application and latter has received rent from him. The defendant petitioner further alleged that he has filed a suit being Title Suit No. 145 of 2013 against the landlord for declaration and permanent injunction, before the learned Court below and in the said suit he has obtained an order of temporary injunction in respect of the entirety of the suit property. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, the defendant petitioner claimed that the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit. In the said suit, the defendant petitioner also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint filed in the said suit on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary party which was rejected by the learned Court below. Thereafter, the plaintiff opposite party filed the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code, praying for impleadment of the landlord/owner of the suit property as the proforma defendant in the said suit. As stated above, by the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed the said application of the plaintiff opposite party and impleaded the owner of the suit property, as the proforma defendant in the eviction suit. The learned Court below held that in the facts of the case the presence of the owner of the suit property is necessary for proper adjudication of the eviction suit.