A sub-lessee who has complied with the requirements of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is a necessary party to a suit for eviction against the lessee, and a person who claims an independent right to possess the suit property is a proper party whose presence would help the court adjudicate the questions involved in the suit effectually and completely.

( 1 ) THESE are two revision petitions preferred by Beni Madhab Mahrotra carrying on business under the name and style of Mahrotra Industries as the sole proprietor thereof at premises Nos. 33, 34, and 34/1, Benbehari Bose Road, Howrah. Orders challenged are both dt. Dec. 13, 1983, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st. Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 75 of 1981 and Title Suit No. 80 of 1981. By the orders impugned, the learned Assistant District Judge has dismissed the two applications under O. 1 R. 10 of the C. P. C. preferred by the petitioner respectively in the two suits for being added as party defendant. The applications are being heard on notice to and on contest by the plaintiff who is the same in both the two suits, namely, Howrah Flour Mill. Since the claim of the petitioner for being added as party defendant in the two suits does not stand on identical grounds it would be necessary for us to deal with the two cases separately.

( 2 ) TITLE Suit No. 75 of 1981 was instituted by the plaintiff Howrah Flour Mill against their tenant Howrah Oil Mill Limited for eviction on different grounds including the ground of default in payment of rent and wrongful subletting to Mahrotra Industries. The subject matter in suit was the above three premises but excluding a part thereof. This suit was not being contested by the defendant and at that stage the petitioner filed the application under O. 1 R. 10 of the Civil P. C. read with S. 151 thereof for being added as a party defendant. The case made out in this application by the petitioner was shortly as follows.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff and the defendant are two sister concerns, the same set of directors being in charge of them. That by a tripartite agreement entered into between the plaintiff, the defendant and the petitioner dt. Nov. 22, 1971, the: petitioner came to, occupy a part of the disputed three premises on Dec. 1, 1971, at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,600/- and the balance on a later date at a monthly rental of Rs. 850/ -. Since there was interference with peaceful possession of the petitioner on due payment of upto date rents in respect of the three premises, the petitioner instituted an earlier suit against both the plaintiff and the defendant, being Title Suit No. 45 of 1981 for certain reliefs. Therein the petitioner put forward his claim as a lawful sub-lessee and the same is still pending. The petitioner further claimed that the said suit led the plaintiff and the defendant to collude with each other and bring in the present suit on false allegations and by suppressing the exact extent of tenancy in favour of the defendant. The object in reality is to oust the petitioner on the basis of a decree to be obtained against the defendant in such a collusive suit. On these averments, the petitioner claimed that he should be added as a party defendant to the present suit of the plaintiff so that the petitioner can establish his independent right as a sub-lessee as also the collusive nature of the suit instituted by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) SO far as the other suit is concerned, being Title Suit No. 80 of 1981, that was a suit instituted by Howrah Flour Mill against French Motor Car Company Limited, another sister concern of the plaintiff. This again was a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default. This suit was instituted for recovery of possession in respect of a part of the disputed three premises. In his application for being added as a party defendant, the petitioner claimed that this again was another collusive suit between two concerns controlled by same set of directors and or their associates. It was specifically pleaded that the defendant, French Motor Car Company held no part of the disputed three premises. The suit premises was a part of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner under the tripartite agreement referred to hereinbefore. The suit had been instituted only to obtain a collusive decree to evict the petit