- (1.) THIS revisional application at the instance of the plaintiff landlords is directed against order nos. 10 and 11 dated September 23, 1982 passed in Title Suit No. 113 of 1982 of the first court of Munsif at Auambagh.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioners instituted the suit against the opposite party no. 1 for his eviction from the suit premises and for arrears of rents and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff-petitioners was that the opposite party no. 1 took the suit premises in tenancy at a monthly rental of Rs. 200|- and that he thereupon set up a school there by the name of Ananda Marga Primary School. It is also alleged that the defendant was a habitual defaulter and that the petitioners required the premises for their own use and occupation.
(3.) SUMMONS could not be served upon the opposite party no. 1 in the ordinary manner. It was served under Order V rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure the opposite party no. 1 not having been found at the address. On September 10. 1982 opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the code read with Sec. 151 thereof for impleading him in the suit after expunging the name of opposite party no. 1. This application was rejected and a second application was filed practically on identical grounds for addition of opposite party no. 2 as a party to the suit. The case made out in the application was that there is a primary; school in the suit premises run by Ananda Marg Pracharak sangha, that the General Secretary of the headquarter of the Sangha at Calcutta looks after the administration is run by the Principal appointed by the General Secretary. It was also the case that the opposite party no. 1, who was previously the Principal has renounced the world and has left the place without leaving any address and that the administrator appointed by the Sangha has been facing difficulties in looking after and conducting the suit. It was further stated that the Sangha had authorised opposite party no. 2 by executing a special power of attorney, to look after and conduct the defence of the suit. It was therefore prayed that the opposite party no. 2 should be added for otherwise the school which is admittedly being run in the suit premises from the very inception of the tenancy would suffer substantial injury. The opposite party no. 2 also filed an application under Sec. 17 (1) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act praying for permission to deposit the rents for the months of July and August, 1982. This application was allowed. Opposite party no. 2 has been added as a party defendant and the prayer to deposit the admitted rent has also been allowed at the risk of the opposite party no. 2.;