Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No.12 dated February 28, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore in Ejectment Case No.68 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C.
(2.) THE applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for adding it as a defendant in the Ejectment Case No.68 of 2006 lodged by the plaintiffs / opposite parties herein against the defendants / opposite parties. That application was rejected by the impugned order by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order is sustainable. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the ejectment case is between the landlords and the tenants. The contention of the applicant is that he is a real tenant in the premises in suit as described in the plaint and that the defendants are not the tenants at all. In support of its contention, the applicant has contended that the plaintiffs instituted an ejectment suit being R.C. No.112 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court, Alipore in respect of the selfsame premises against one Smt. Doly Khanna. In that suit, the applicant filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for adding the applicant itself as a party and that application was allowed holding that the applicant was a necessary party to the suit. The applicant has not filed any rent receipt or any other convincing document as a proof that it was recognised as a tenant by the landlords. Therefore, the landlords do not recognise the applicant as a tenant under them and so, in order to be added as a party the applicant is required to show that it is a tenant or at least it is a proper party to the suit.
(3.) MR. Roy appearing on behalf of the applicant has referred to the decision of Kamta Prasad and ors. v. Smt. Vidyawati and ors. reported in AIR 1994 Madhya Pradesh 181, the decision of Hiran Bala Debi v. Prodyut Kumar Mondal reported in 1991(1) CLT 32, and the decision of Devi Dayal Dixit v. M/s. Rashtriya Electrical and Engineering Co., reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 432. So far as the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court is concerned, it has been observed that the Court is to implead any person whose presence is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.;