JUDGMENT - (1) This is a defendatns second appeal from a suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff who calims to be the defendantss landlord andfor recovery of arrears of rent.

(2) The house in question is situated at mouza Sanglud, tahsil Daryapur, district Amravathi. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of this house. According to him, he let out the house to the defendant in the year 1946. He states at that tim the defendant was in his service and had no house to live in. Therefore, he permitted the defendant to occupy the house and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 0-8-0 per month. His grievance is that though the defendant was asked several times to vacate the house and though he was even served with a registered notice in respect of it, he has refused to vacate.

(3) The defence of the defendant is that the house in question belonged not to be plaintiff but to his maternal uncles Sukedeo and Baban, and that he is occupying it as a license of these two person. He denied that the plaintiff has any title to the house or that he was let into possession by the plaintiff.

(4) In his written statement, the defendatn aso contended that Sukdeo and abn were necessary or at least proper parties to the suit, suggesting there by that they should be joined as parties to the suit.

(5) The trial court decreed the suit, The defendant thereupon appealed to the District Court but his appeal was dismissed.

(6) The first point which has been urged before me very strenuousely by Mr. Prabhune on behlaf of the defendant is that Sukedo and Baban were necessary parties to the suit and that since they were not joined as parties thereto, the suti itself was rendered bad and ought to have been dimissed as untenable. In support of his contention, Mr. Prabhune strongly relies upon a decision of a singly Bench of the Madras High Court in Subbaraya v. Seetha Ramaswami, AIR 1933 Mad 664. That was a case where the plaintiff had brought a suit to eject the defendant from a site which was in the latters occupation. the plea of the defendant was that the land belonged to the Municipal Council and that the Municiple council was, therefore, a necessary party to the suit. The trial court, without making the Municiple Council party held that the plaintiff had made out a better title to the property in suit than the Municiple council and granted a decree to the plaintiff. The decree was confirmed by the appellate court but was recersed in second appeal by the High Cout. The learned Judge relied mainly upon the deision in Umed Mal . V. chand Mal, 53, Ind App 271 and upon a passage from Dicey on parties to an Action. R 113 (p. 495) In Umed Mals case, 53 Ind App 271 the facts were that a mortgage as purchaser of the mortgaged properties in Court auction in execution of his mortgage decree sued a third party, not being the morgagor, in ejectment of one of the suit properties which were alleged by him to have been included in his mortgage and purchased by him in execution. He however, did not make the mortgagor a prty to the suit. but his suit was decreed by the lower courts. Their lordships said that the lower courts acted with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in deciding the question ofthe title of the mortgaged property in the absence of the mortgagor. I may point out that in the case before their Lordships the precedent title of the mortgagor was admitted by both the parties. That is not the position in the case before me, nor apprantely was the position in the case before the learned judge.

(7) The passage from Dicey on Parties to an Action,which has been relied upon by the learned Judge, runs as follows.

"The persons who have a right to defend in an action of ejectment are any persons named in the writ and any person who is inpossession by himself or his tenant.................The object of the plaitiff in ejectment is to obtain, not damages but possession of the land.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document