Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Importers And Manufacturers Ltd vs Pheroze Framroze Taraporewalaand ... on 10 December, 1952
In support of his contention he relies upon a decision in Importers & Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze . In the said case it was held that a sub-tenant, though not a necessary party, is a proper party to the proceeding and his joinder does not alter the nature of the suit.
South Asia Industries Private Ltd vs S. B. Sarup Singh And Others on 18 January, 1965
Reference is1 also made to a decision in South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Saroop Singh in order to urge that the sub-tenant is entitled to oppose eviction. He can say that he is a lawful sub-tenant.
A.S. Sulochana vs C. Dharmalingam on 28 November, 1986
Dr. Mondal lastly relies upon a decision in A. S. Sulochana v. C. Dharmalingam to substantiate his argument that since he is in possession of the property as a sub-tenant since long without any objection of the landlord, the sub-tenancy is lawful and he should be impleaded as a party to the proceeding. It is candidly conceded by Dr. Mondal that he cannot possibly urge that his client is a necessary party to the proceeding. Nevertheless, he can very well say that his client is a proper party to the proceedings it is contended. His client should not be driven to another litigation to substantiate his right. In the- instant case his right should be adjudicated by giving him an opportunity by impleading him in the proceeding.
R.N. Aich Roy vs Hanuman Estates (P.) Ltd. And Anr. on 7 April, 1971
3. In my opinion, the whole question boils down to a single point viz, whether the petitioner can claim to be impleaded against the will of the plaintiff. Section 13(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (herematter referred to as the Act) lays down as to when a sub-tenant should be impleaded in a proceeding for eviction against his tenant. The sub-tenant as a matter of right can claim that he should be impleaded proTided he has given notice of his sub-tenancy to the landlord, In my opinion, the provision under Section 16.(1) and (2) of the Act is mandatory. If the sub-tenant has not given mandatory notice under Section 16 of the Act, he cannot claim to be impleaded as a matter of right. If the statutory oobligation cast upon him under Section 16 of the Act has not been discharged, he cannot seek protection in a suit .for eviction against the tenant by having an opportunity to contest a proceeding for eviction against the tenant. Dr. Mondal concedes that his client has not given notice under Section 16 of the Act. The opposite parties rely upon a single Bench decision of this Court in R. N. Aich Roy v. Hanuman Estate (P) Ltd. . In paragraph 8 of the judgment the learned Judge found that whether the sub-tenant has to be made a party in the suit for ejectment or not, is provided in Section 13(2) of the Act. The plain meaning of the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the landlord is not bound to make the sub-tenant a party to the suit unless the sub-tenant has served his landlord with a notice under Section 16(2) of the Act. In the decisions referred to by Dr. Mondal there was no occasion to consider any provision corresponding to Section 13(2) and Section 16 of the Act. While not discharging the statutory obligation under Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner cannot come and say that he should be impleaded in a proceeding against the tenant. In that event, Section 13(2) of the Act becomes meaningless.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bholanath Chatterjee And Anr. vs Somendra Chandra Nandi And Ors. on 15 March, 1971
A single Judge of this Court in Bholanath Chatterjee v. Somendra Ch. Nandi held that a sub-lessee under the lessor is a necessary party to a proceeding for eviction by the head lessor.
1