Ambica Pada Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This Rule was obtained by the petitioners-30 in number-who applied to the City Civil Court Judge in Ejectment Suit No. 205/77 to be added as parties under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They claimed that the tenant opposite party No. 2 against whom a suit for eviction has been brought by the landlord opposite party No. 1 is not seriously contesting the suit and that she is in collusion with the landlord. The petitioners who claimed to be members of a mess which is being run in the disputed premises wanted to be added as parties in the ejectment suit to contest the suit for ejectment. The learned Judge in his impugned order dismissed such application. The said order is challenged in this Rule as made in irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The order impugned in this Rule cannot be said to have been made in error of jurisdiction at all. The petitioners are numbers of a mess and are neither tenants nor sub-tenants of opposite party No. 2. The mere fact that the premises is used for the purpose of running a mess with a fluctuating number of members does not entitle the members to be added in a suit for ejectment.
(2.) Mr. Ghosh in support of the Rule contends that they are claiming interest in the premises as members of the mess for which the premises have been let out. The object of letting out of the premises might be for running a mess but it is never a monthly tenancy and the only recorded tenant is the person in whose name the tenancy has been taken, namely, opposite party No. 2.
(3.) The members of the mess have no locus standi at all. Mr. Ghosh has relied upon a decision of this Court in Jagat Enterprises v. Anup Kumar Daw & ors. reported in 81 CWN 400. Sub-lessee claiming an independent right which can be asserted against the lessor wanted to be added as a necessary party in the suit. But such prayer was disallowed and the rule was discharged on a finding that in a suit for eviction of the lessee the alleged sub-lessee who is not made a party is not entitled to be impleaded in such a suit on his own to assert his alleged independent right or statutory protection as a necessary party. This is the burden of the decision as contained in paragraph 12 of the reported judgment. It was a case with which the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 has no concern. I do not think that this decision will help Mr. Ghosh in his submission to this court. Apart from that, the petitioners do not claim from the very nature of their case to be such lessees claiming dependant right to statutory protection. The petitioners at most are licensees of the tenant and they have permissive possession. The decree passed against the tenant would be binding on them and the petitioners themselves have no locus standi to contest the suit for eviction in the above circumstances.;