Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.

This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order No.9 dated 11th February, 2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.508 of 2009.

The petitioner being landlady of the suit premises filed eviction suit (Ejectment Suit No.508 of 2009) against O. P. No.2 Biswanath Banerjee as her tenant. As per plaint the tenant defaulted in payment of rent since September, 2008 and also sent a notice dated 11th of July, 2009 surrendering his tenancy right but without delivering possession of the suit premises to the landlady. Accordingly, the petitioner plaintiff filed said eviction suit under Section 6 (1) (e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The O. P. No.1 Keya Majumdar alias Mithu Majumdar claiming to be the divorced wife of O. P. No.2 defendant tenant filed an application dated 10th February, 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to be added as a party in said Ejectment suit. After contested hearing learned trial court allowed said application filed by O. P. No.1 by adding her as a party defendant in the suit. Being aggrieved the petitioner plaintiff has filed this revisional application.

Mr. Probal Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner landlady, submits that there was no privity of contract in between the petitioner plaintiff landlady and O. P. No.1 being the divorced wife of O. P. No.2 tenant. He further submits that O. P. No.1

being the divorced wife of the O. P. No.2 tenant and having no order of residence in the suit premises was not entitled to be added as a party defendant in the eviction proceeding. He next submits that the O. P. No.1 being the divorced wife of O. P. No.2 tenant was neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit of eviction filed by the petitioner landlady against O. P. / tenant on the ground of surrender of tenancy as well as default. In support of his contention he has referred case laws reported in (2005) 3 SCC 313 (B. P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi Reddy and another) and (2005) 8 SCC 140 (Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee and another). Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order impugned.

Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya appearing for O. P. No.1, on the other hand, submits that O. P. No.1 along with her sons were all along residing in the suit premises the tenancy of which was taken by her husband being O. P. No.2. He further submits that O. P. No.2 husband filed a matrimonial suit being No.53 of 2003 against O. P. No.1 wife praying for divorce. In said matrimonial suit the wife filed a Misc. case under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for pendentelite maintenance and that after contested hearing the same was allowed which included payment of rent of suit premises by the husband to the landlady. He submits that after passing of the decree of divorce by judgment dated 24th of April, 2008 the O. P. wife filed another Misc. case No.47 of 2008 under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. As said Misc. Case is still pending, he submits, unless the O. P. No.1 is permitted to be added as a party in the pending eviction suit her interest will not be protected. He submits that this is more so as O. P. No.2 husband already stopped payment of rent and also surrendered his tenancy by writing a letter to the petitioner landlady and not contesting the eviction suit. In this connection he refers a case law reported in 1990 (1) CHN page 447 (Hiran Bala Debi & Anr. vs. Prodyut Kr. Mondal and others) to impress upon this court that as O. P. No.1 divorced wife is still continuing the possession of the suit promises and her application for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is still pending in the competent court of law, she should be permitted to be added as a party in the eviction suit to protect her interest.

He furt