BAIKUNTHA NATH DE Vs. SHAIK HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and arises out of a suit for ejectment by the plaintiff. The defence of the defendants was that the tenancy was a permanent one and was not, therefore, determinable by the plaintiff-landlord.

(2.) The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court, reversed that judgment and decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs and made a decree for ejectment giving the defendants six months time to vacate the land.

(3.) In this second appeal by the defendants the learned Advocate for the defendants Contended first that the suit was bad, because one of the sub-lessees was not a party to the suit. We do not think that mere non-joinder of a party in an ejectment suit is fatal to the trial of the case. It may be that the party not being impleaded may not be bound by the decree. But so far as the defendants are con-earned it has been found that they have no right to retain possession of the land.