Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THESE two applications are directed against different orders passed by the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No.99 of 2005. By the first application being C.O. No.2638 of 2010, the plaintiff has challenged the order nos.44 dated March 25, 2010 and the order no.47 dated May 7, 2010 thereby rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. giving liberty to the plaintiff to file a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The other application is also filed by the plaintiff and is also directed against the order no.52 dated June 22, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No.99 of 2005 thereby rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Since, the two applications have arisen out of the same ejectment case and they are very must related to each other, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioner instituted the said case against the opposite party for eviction on the ground of default and reasonable requirement before the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah (learned Civil Judge, Junior Division). THE opposite party is contesting the said ejectment case by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. THE case was at the stage of further peremptory hearing. At that time, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint and for addition of party, contending inter alia, that the opposite party has inducted sub-tenants in the premises in case as described in the ejectment case and this is a good ground for ejectment of the opposite party. Moreover, the sub-tenants are also the necessary parties for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. In disposing of the application for amendment of the plaint, the learned Additional Controller has observed that the application is not maintainable on the ground that it was not the one under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. and so, the contention of addition of parties should not be accepted. Accordingly, the application for amendment of the ejectment application was rejected. Thereafter, when the petitioner filed an application for addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., that application, too, was rejected by the order no.52 dated June 22, 2010. Being aggrieved by such orders, these two applications have been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned orders should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the learned Additional Controller rejected the application for amendment of the application for ejectment on the ground of technicalities stating that though the amendment of the ejectment application was sought for on the ground that the opposite party had sublet the premises in case, the application was not one under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. and as such, the application for amendment of the application for ejectment could not be entertained. It may be noted herein that the learned Advocate for the opposite party before the Additional Controller expressed consent in allowing the application on consent on his part. In spite of that the learned Additional Controller rejected the application on technical ground with liberty to file another application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, when the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for addition of the sub-tenants as defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 contending that the sub-tenants are in exclusive possession of the premises in case. The defendant / opposite party raised objection that the sub-tenants could not be the necessary parties. It has been described that the so-called sub-tenants are unauthorized sub-tenants, meaning thereby they have been inducted in the premises in case without any notice. Under these circumstances, the learned Additional Controller has observed that the sub-tenants are bound by the decree that may be passed against the tenant and that they have no independent right to agitate or defend before the Additional Controller.;