Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the applicant and is directed against the order no.12 dated September 13, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.333 of 2009.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit for eviction against the opposite party nos.6 & 7 for eviction in respect of the properties, as described in the schedule of the plaint. THE plaintiffs contende3d that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party nos.6 & 7, namely Jyostshamoy Dasgupta, since deceased, was inducted as a tenant and after his death, the tenancy devolved upon the opposite party nos.6 & 7 being his wife and son. THE defendants sub-let the suit property in favour of a third person and the defendants have their own accommodation at premises no.7, Park Side Road. That is why, the suit for eviction was filed. THE opposite party nos.6 & 7 are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. THE applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that he was also a joint tenant in respect of the suit property with the said Jyostshamoy Dasgupta and for that reason he has wanted to be impleaded as a party to the suit. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the admittedly Jyostshamoy Dasgupta, since deceased, was the original tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the premises in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The opposite party nos.6 & 7, being the wife and the son, are the heirs of deceased Jyostshamoy Dasgupta. There is no dispute about it and so they inherited the tenancy. The applicant contended that he was a joint tenant with Jyostshamoy Dasgupta but the applicant has failed to show any document from which it could be understood that he was a joint tenant with Jyostshamoy Dasgupta. The learned Trial Judge observed that the applicant has failed to show any relation with the original tenant or with the opposite party no.2. He is not a member of the family of the deceased tenant. The ground for ejectment is sub-tenancy. Since the applicant has failed to show by any convincing material that he is a tenant in respect of the premises in suit, his contention that he should be added as a party cannot be accepted. He is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. There is, prima facie, no notice of sub-tenancy on behalf of the applicant to the plaintiffs. The landlords are entitled to evict a sub-tenant without notice. In an earlier suit being Title Suit No.62 of 1988 between the parties, the applicant was not also a party.
(3.) THIS being the position, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. So, there is no merit in this application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.;