- (1.) The petitioner has come up against an order by which the application of the petitioner for being added as a party was rejected by the trial court in Ejectment Suit No.77 of 2014 on April 20, 2016.
(2.) The plaintiffs in the said suit are the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 before me. They have instituted the suit, inter alia, seeking eviction of the defendants, being opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6 in this proceeding and for recovery of possession from them of the suit property. The petitioner's case is that the opposite parties no. 4, 5 and 6 have been operating a petroleum retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation from the suit property on the basis of a dealership agreement. Mr Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that as per the dealership agreement the opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6 are prohibited from surrendering the property on which their retail outlet is located without prior consent of the oil company, being the petitioner in this case. His further submission is that the petitioner has sufficient interest in the suit property for which its presence in the suit ought to have been allowed.
(3.) This prayer is resisted by Mr Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 1 to 3. His case is that the dealership is an independent agreement with which his clients are not involved and the petitioner cannot obtain an entry into the suit between his clients and their tenants. It is also his submission that the Corporation has commenced arbitration proceeding against the dealer, as per the dealership agreement. Mr Basu has relied on a judgment of a co -ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Graphite India Limited - vs - Bandana Bose reported in (2005) 3 ICC 311 (Cal). In this judgment, the beneficiary of a tenancy has been given the locus to contest a suit brought against a tenant.;