Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"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 instituted 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 them and so omission cannot be said to be an improper act." On the fact of the said judgment it is clear that the decree passed in the earlier ejectment suit being Suit No. 883 of 1987 is binding upon the plaintiff in the instant suit and he cannot claim an independent right to challenge the decree. In the plaint the plaintiff has claimed that he is entitled to a declaration that the decree is not binding upon him and should be adjudged as void as it was obtained by fraud or collusion. From the particulars of the fraud and collusion alleged in the plaint in the instant suit issues which may arise for determination in the instant suit can be gone into in the execution proceeding itself under the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Such question raised in the suit are really questions affecting execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and as such are barred under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Jagat Enterprises v. Anup Kumar Daw the question if a sub-tenant would be bound by a decree passed against a tenant and under what circumstances he can challenge such a decree was considered by the Division Bench of this court and while analysing the facts of the said case and referring to the earlier decisions on the point the Division Bench observed in paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the said judgment at page 403 of the said report as follows: