SANWARMAL Vs. BUDH MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question, which has been raised in this revision petition, is as to whether the petitioner is a proper party to the suit for eviction filed by Budhmal and Manak Chand against Radhakishan.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case is that Radha Kishan was their tenant in respect of the suit shop and eviction of the tenant Radha Kishan is claimed in the suit on several grounds, inter alia that he has sub-let the shop in dispute to the petitioner Sanwar Mal (Sanwar Ram ). THE defendant Radha Kishan filed an application admitting the allegations made in the plaint and has not contested the suit. THE petitioner Sanwarmal filed an application in the trial court stating that he was the tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit shop and that Radhakishan has nothing to do with the tenancy of the said shop and that the petitioner Sanwarmal was in possession of the suit shop as a tenant from the plaintiffs. THE petitioner prayed that he may be impleaded as a party to the suit being a proper party. THE application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Churu by his order dated August 19, 1982 on the ground that the petitioner did not state in his application that he was a sub-tenant claiming under Radha Kishan, but he claimed an independent right of tenancy and as such he was not a peeper party.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that in South Aisa Industries Case (3), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not laid down a broad proposition that in all suits between a landlord and his tenant the sub-tenant is a necessary party; but in my humble view, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have definitely laid down that in a landlord's suit for ejectment against a tenant, the assignee or the sub-tenant is a proper party, in as-much as it has been held that an assignee or sub-tenant will have to be heard to oppose an order or decree for eviction obtained against a direct tenant; because otherwise such a person would be condemned without a hearing. Their Lordships made it amply clear in the aforesaid passage that the direct tenant is expected to protect the interest of the sub-tenant is no ground for refusing to make the sub-tenant or assignee a party to the suit, for he cannot be made to depend on the tenant-in chief for the protection of his rights. Supposing the direct tenant agreed to accept the case of the plaintiff and a collusive decree is passed against him. In such a case, the rights of the sub-tenant would be put in jeopardy and, therefore, their Lordships have held in the aforesaid case that a sub-tenant is a proper party though not a necessary party.