A party seeking to be impleaded as a party to a suit must demonstrate that it has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit and such interest may be affected directly by the decree that may be passed in the suit.

1. Heard the learned advocate for the parties.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order being Order No.19 dated 10th September, 2009 passed by the learned Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. EJ 63/07-C.

2. The petitioner in the instant application filed an application before the learned court below for being added as party to the pending suit instituted by the opposite party no.1 & 2 against the opposite party no.3. In the said ejectment suit, the opposite party no.1 & 2 herein, as plaintiffs, prayed for a decree against the defendant, being the opposite party no.3 herein, in terms of prayers (a) and (b) which are set out here-in-below:-

“Decree for recovery of khas and vacant possession of one flat being No.2, situated on the 1st Floor of Premises No.539, Rabindra Sarani, Police Station Shyampukur, Koltaka – 700 003 by evicting the defendant therefrom.

Decree for mesne profit @ Rs.100/- per diem calculating from the date of termination of the tenancy till realization of the khas and vacant possession of the suit premises or such sum as may be assessed by this learned court on enquiry.”

3. The petitioner herein preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for being added as party to the aforementioned ejectment suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs and the defendant were trying to oust him illegally and that the plaintiffs did not implead the petitioner as a tenant in the ejectment suit with some malafide intention and to mislead the learned court in order to obtain an ex parte decree against the petitioner upon suppression of material fact behind his back. In the application filed by the petitioner before the learned court below under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, he has referred to an earlier Title Suit, being Title Suit No.769 of 1991, wherein the plaintiffs were made parties and which was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner also referred to another ejectment suit, being Ejectment Suit No.1292/2000 where the petitioner’s prayer for being added as a party was initially refused by the learned trial court but was subsequently allowed in terms of an order passed by this court. It was also contended by the petitioner that he had duly contested the said Ejectment Suit No.1292 of 2000, which was dismissed on contest by the learned 6th Small Causes Court. In such circumstances, it was prayed before the learned court below that the petitioner be added as a defendant to the Ejectment Suit, being Ejectment Suit No.EJ 63/07-C, instituted by the plaintiffs against the opposite party no.3 herein.

5. By the order impugned, the learned court below dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by observing inter alia, that the petitioner had failed to adduce prima facie document in support of his petition that he was in lawful possession of the suit premises. The learned court below further observed that the petitioner had no locus standi to contest the suit at that stage.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on a judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s. Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala & ors. reported in AIR 1953 SC 73 and submits that where a landlord brings a suit for possession and rent against his tenant after giving a notice to quit and also impleads therein a subtenant, to whom the premises were illegally sub-let by the tenant, the suit would nevertheless be one between a landlord and tenant and the Small Causes Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The sub-tenant though not a necessary party to the suit is a proper party and his joinder cannot alter the nature of the suit. Learned advocate submits that the ratio of this decision is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the insta