Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. So in the considered opinion of this Court learned Court below did not commit any mistake in finding that Smt. Renu Khandelwal parted with the possession of suit shop to Sunil Khandelwal.

14. In eviction suit the sub tenant is not the necessary party. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rupchand Gupta v. Raghvanshi (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another, AIR (1964) SC 1889 observed as under:-

" It is quite clear that the law does not require that the sub- lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub- lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub- lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub- lease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act." (emphasis supplied) In our considered opinion, the present respondents could not be said to be "necessary party" to the suit. Non-joinder of respondents, hence, would not make a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai nullity or executable."