Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Protap Chandra Singh vs Nibaran Kumar Mitra And Anr. on 21 September, 1973

Md. Zamiruddin And Ors. vs Mrs. Fatima Ahmad And Ors. on 24 January, 1978

7. Mr. S. C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, tried to distinguish Protap Chandra Singh's case (AIR 1974 Pat 135} on the ground that in that case, the sub-lessee was a party. The law is now settled that in a suit for eviction, a sub-tenant is not a necessary party and accordingly, even if he is made a party by way of abundant caution, the expunging of his name from the suit at the instance of the plaintiff would not lead to the abatement of the suit as a whole and on principle, to my mind, it would hardly make a difference whether such a sub-tenant was made a party or not,
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Laxmi Narayan Gauri Shankar vs Gopal Krishna Kanoria And Anr. on 18 March, 1980

On the facts it is clear that no privity of contract existed between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and in such circumstance the interest of respondent No. 2 in the leasehold being co-extensive with that of the appellant, no estate in favour of respondent No. 2 came into existence. This Court on 'two occasions, namely, in the cases of (1) Pratap Chandra Singh v. Nibaran Kumar Mitra (AIR 1974 Pat 135) and (2) Md. Zamiruddin v. Mrs. Fatima Ahmad, 1978 BBCJ (HC) 202: (AIR 1978 Pat 153), relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rupchand Gupta v. Raghuvanshi (Private) Ltd. (AIR 1964 SC 1889), has held that in a suit for ejectment of the lessee, the sub-lessee was not a necessary party and the decree passed against the lessee was binding on the sub-lessee. In the case of a sub-lease the sub-lessee becomes a tenant of the lessee and does not stand in the lessee's place.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1