Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

" Taking the last action first, viz., Raghuvanshi's omission to implead the appellant, 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 Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.

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 act harashly on the sub lessee. The act harshly on the sub lessee; but this is a position will 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."