JYOTSNA DAS Vs. SAILENDRA NATH PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question of law which is sought to be raised in this second appeal is whether a party who is not aggrieved by the decree of the trial court is obliged to file a cross-objection against any finding rendered on an issue against such party by the trial court in any other party's appeal for the decision on the relevant issue to be reversed.

(2.) Following a written notice issued to the widow of the deceased original tenant, a suit was instituted against such widow for eviction. An objection was taken by the defendant, who seeks to prefer the present second appeal, that the suit was not maintainable since the original tenant was survived by other heirs who had not been impleaded in the suit. The trial court found the suit not to be maintainable on such ground. However, in consonance with the somewhat strange command of Order XIV Rule 2(1) of the Code, despite the trial court holding that the suit was not maintainable, it proceeded to address the other issues, including the one as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession on the ground of reasonable requirement. Quite surprisingly, the issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff and in a rather cursory manner.

(3.) The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the suit. No cross- objection was filed by the defendant who is the would-be second appellant. On the maintainability of the suit, the respondent- landlord asserted before the first appellate court that in view of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the landlord was obliged only to implead the widow of the original tenant as a party to the eviction suit since the other heirs of the original tenant had either surrendered their rights in favour of the widow or the other heirs had no further right to continue in possession of the tenanted premises. The first appellate court agreed with the landlord. The defendant-widow does not challenge such finding of the first appellate court.