Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd vs Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors on 5 September, 1963
5. It would further be relevant to point out that in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd., v. Anand Ji Kalyanjis Pedhi (AIR 1965 SC 414), the majority decision held that a person remaining in occupation of the premises let to him after the determination of or expiry of the period of the tenancy is commonly, though in law not accurately, called a statutory tenant, and even if it was assumed that the tenant was entitled to sublet the premises, under the terms of the lease, he could not exercise the right to sub-let granted under the lease, after he became a statutory tenant. Therefore, in any view, if in the instant case, the lease was, as averred in the plaint, for a fixed period of five years which elapsed in November, 1972, defendant Nos. 1 to 10 would not have a right to sub-let after they became statutory tenants.
Sheikh Yusuf vs Jyotish Chandra Banerjee And Ors. on 29 July, 1931
In Sheikh Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra (AIR 1932 Cal 241), Suhrawardy, J. with whom Graham, J. agreed held that it would be unreasonable to force a landlord to make in a suit for ejectment against his lessee, all the under-lessees or even persons under such wider-lessees, who may be in actual possession, parties to the suit the nature of which may change from a simple suit for ejectment on forfeiture
or determination of the lease, because so far as the landlord is concerned the possession is with his lessee. The possession of the lessee may be by his occupying the premises himself or by his allowing other persons to occupy the premises on his behalf either as sub-lessees or licensees or as servants. It was accordingly held that it would be most oppressive to insist upon the landlord to make all such persons parties to a suit.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Suresh Mohan Thakur vs Shamal Mall Bubna on 28 January, 1957
Thereafter, in a Bench decision of this Court in Protap Chandra Singh v. Nibaran Kumar Mitra (AIR 1974 Pat 135), Untwalia, Chief Justice, as he then was, and S. K. Jha, J. held by reference to the passage quoted above in the case of Rupchand Gupta that the proposition laid down in Suresh Mohan Thakur's case that a sub-lessee is a necessary party no longer holds good. Therefore, the proposition of law is settled now that in a suit for eviction by the landlord, a sub-lessee is not a necessary party. I have already stated that the plaintiff's case is that defendants Nos. 11 to 28 are the sub-tenants under defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and hence, if subsequently, the plaintiff made a prayer to expunge the name of defendant No. 25, who, on the pleading of the parties, is a sub-tenant, the suit would not abate, because defendant No. 25 was not a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.
Kedar Nath vs L. Manak Chand And Ors. on 4 August, 1960
8. Thereafter, by reference to paragraph 10 of the plaint as also to the reliefs claimed in it, Mr. Ghose urged that the suit was for a joint decree for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent and future damages with interest. He therefore, relying upon the decision in Jiyabha Pathabhai v. Halubha Muluji (AIR 1953 Sau 159) and Kedar Nath v. L. Manak Chand (AIR 1961 Punj 555) urged that the suit being indivisible and the liabilities of the defendants being joint, the suit would abate as a whole if the name of one of the sub-tenants was expunged. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, it is stated that against the terms of the lease and without the consent of the plaintiff, the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 have inducted defendants Nos. 11 to 28 in the different Katras of Tin sheds on the demised premises as their sub-tenants and the plaintiff asked all the defendants (.0 remove themselves and also their business materials from the demised premises and to give vacant and khas possession to the plaintiff after the expiry of the lease period. The paragraph concludes with the recital that, therefore, the suit is for eviction and for realisation of arrears of rent and future damages with interest. In the relief sought for, there is also a prayer for the eviction of all the defendants as also for recovery of rent in accordance with the terms of the lease and for damages past and future for illegal possession.
Protap Chandra Singh vs Nibaran Kumar Mitra And Anr. on 21 September, 1973
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,
1