In eviction suits, only landlord and tenant are necessary parties, while co-owners do not have a right to join against the plaintiff's wishes, as it alters the nature of the lawsuit.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against an order being no. 25 dated June 23, 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit no. 6 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected.

3. The opposite party no. 1 filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of Khas possession against the opposite party no. 2 herein. In the said suit the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for being added as a party defendant in the said suit. The said application was contested by the opposite party no. 1 by filing a written objection.

4. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application for addition of party by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Bose, the learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of half share of the premises no. P-18, Kalakar Street in which the tenanted premises is situated and he has been collecting 50% rent from the tenant/opposite party no. 2 herein. He submitted that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the defendant/opposite party no. 2 herein and the defendant no. 2 herein is a monthly tenant under the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is a necessary party in the instant suit and the question of evicting the opposite party no. 2 does not arise. Mr. Bose further contended that if a co-owner is not agreeable to evict the tenant, eviction suit filed by the other co-owner to evict the tenant is not maintainable. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Umbrella Mfg. Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla , reported at (2004) 3 SCC 178 . For the same proposition Mr. Bose also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangal Builders & Enterprises Ltd. v. Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd., reported at (2017) SCC Online SC 2133 Mr. Bose further contended that a person who has a right in the property which is the subject matter of a suit, is a necessary party in such suit. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S J.N. Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. reported at (2025) INSC 611 .

6. Per contra Mr. Kothari learned advocate for the opposite party no. 1 submitted that after filing of the suit for eviction the opposite party no. 2 herein filed a suit for declaration of tenancy right and for a further declaration that the opposite party no. 1 is not the owner of the suit property and he has no right to claim and/or receive any rent from the opposite party no. 2. He further contended that the application for addition of party was filed in the year 2024. He further contended that only the landlord and the tenant are necessary parties in a suit for eviction and in support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das , reported at (2018) 2 SCC 352 .

7. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

8. The opposite party no. 1 claims to ha