( 1 ) THE appellant-landlord filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute. The respondent-tenant was occupying the land along with her husband Nagendra Kumar Dey. Earlier Nagendra Kumar Dey was the tenant of the land during the period from 1946 to 1949. He made some construction on the said land.

( 2 ) THE trial court decreed the suit. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 and on that ground set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the appellant-landlord. The landlord went in second appeal before the High court. The High court reached the finding that Nagendra Kumar Dey made construction on the suit land during the period when he was tenant and he was occupying the land and the constructed portion on the said land, at the time of the filing of the suit. On these findings the High court came to the conclusion that Nagendra Kumar Dey was a necessary party. Since he was not impleaded as a party in the suit the High court dismissed the appeal and as a consequence dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-landlord.

(