Back
A.R.LAKSHMANAN, ALTAMAS KABIR
Ruma Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Rani Banerjee – Respondent
Key Points: - The appellant (divorced wife) sought to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in an eviction suit; trial and high court dismissed; Supreme Court upheld dismissal, holding divorced wife cannot claim interest in suit premises independently or through erstwhile husband, and has no privity with landlady. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court clarifies that a person can be a necessary or proper party only if required for complete adjudication; sub-tenants and others may be proper parties in certain contexts, but the appellant was not a necessary nor a proper party. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, Section 13(1)(a) concerns eviction for subletting; the appellant was not shown to be a sub-tenant recognized by landlady; mere maintenance rights including residence do not by themselves create a tenancy or right to contest eviction against the tenant. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses maintenance provisions under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Sections 3, 18, 23) to determine whether maintenance rights extend to residence; however, the court still held the divorced wife cannot claim a right to contest or be a party to eviction simply on maintenance grounds. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The appeal is dismissed; impugned orders are not interfered with. (!) (!)
Judgment
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—The appellant, who is an unsuccessful intervenor in both the courts below, is the divorced wife of the recorded sole tenant (second respondent herein) who is also the sole defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent herein - Sudha Rani Banerjee.
2. The instant appeal is against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2000 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.O.No. 582 of 2000 rejecting the appellant’s application for being added as a party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. The High Court concurred with the judgment and order dated 02.02.2000 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Alipore. The High Court rejected the plea of the appellant that she is directly interested in the tenanted suit premises by way of her entitlement towards maintenance which includes residence as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-
As already stated the action arises out of a suit for ejectment filed on 28.03.1992 on the ground of default, subletting without the prior written consent of the contesting first respondent herein (plaintiff landlady). Her case, very briefly, is that after dissolution
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
