In an ejectment suit, where the plaintiff is claiming title to the suit property on the basis of inheritance, assignment or adoption etc., and the tenant has not attorned to him, a third party claiming title to the property may be a proper party to the suit.

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. : This is a revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated January 13, 1993 passed by the learned Judge, Eighth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 759 of 1984 rejecting an application for addition of party filed by the petitioner in this revisional application.

2. Ejectment Suit No. 759 of 1984 has been instituted by Shrimati Satyabala Paul against her tenant Shrimati Smritikana Dhar, the opposite party No.2. During the pendency of the said suit, Satyabala died on May 27, 1991. The opposite party No.1 in this revisional application filed an application for his substitution/addition in the said suit instead and in place of the original plaintiff on the strength of a registered deed of settlement executed by the said Satyabala whereunder the opposite party No.1 is the beneficiary.

3. The present petitioner Chandi Charan Paul in his application for addition of party contended that he is the only son of the said Satyabala and being the natural heir is entitled to inherent the property-in-suit on the death of Satyabala. It is alleged the deed of settlement dated February 11, 1991 standing in favour of the opposite party No.1 is void. The petitioner has already instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 1136 of 1992 against the opposite party No.1 challenging the deed of settlement. In the said suit the learned Judge, Tenth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta by order dated June 8, 1992 has passed an interim order restraining the opposite party No.1 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in the suit property otherwise than under due course of law.

4. The petitioner applied for his addition in the ejectment suit on the ground that the petitioner is an interested person in the ejectment suit and as such is required to be added as defendant No.2 in the said suit.

5. By order impugned the learned trial Judge rejected the said application for addition of party holding that till the deed of settlement executed by Satyabala in favour of the opposite party No.1 is set aside in Title Suit No. 1136 of 1192, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

6. Mr. Asis Chandra Bagchi, learned Advocate, for the petitioner submits that this is an ejectment suit initiated by the original owner, Satyabala, and since the devolution of interest in respect of the property-in-suit is in dispute between the son, that is, the petitioner and the grandson (son of the daughter), that is, the opposite party No.1, to avoid future controversies and complications; this petitioner ought to have been impleaded as defendant No.2 inasmuch as it is settled law that a decree could, also, be passed in favour of a defendant in a suitable case.

7. Mr. Isanath Jana, learned Advocate, for the plaintiff/opposite party No.1, strenuously contended that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this court. Mr. Jana, further, submits that in the event the prayer for petitioner is granted, a simple suit for eviction will be transformed into a complicated suit for declaration of title, which is not permissible in law. Mr. Jana submits that addition of this petitioner in the suit as defendant No.2 will embarrass and delay the trial of the suit.

8. Mr. Jana in support of his contentions cited the case of Ram Prakash vs. Amar Nath & Ors., reported in 1985 (1) RCJ 309. In the said case the landlord filed a proceeding for eviction of a tenant contending that he has purchased the suit shop room from the original owner. The brother of the erstwhile owner applied for his addition in the said proceeding alleging he is the real owner. The prayer for addition was rejected as he was to seek his remedy in civil courts. The case of Rameswarlal vs. Panchu Sahu & Anr., reported in AIR 1969 Orissa 116 , has been cited to contend that in a rent suit third party claiming to be owner of the property-in-question cannot be added. In the case of Pravat Kumar Misra vs