Persons with a common grievance and a common interest in the subject matter of a suit can sue on behalf of all similarly situated persons under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is Goshala Marg Residents Association (regd.), Kishan Ganj, Delhi and plaintiff No. 2 is Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sharma, who is one or the members of the Association. These two plaintiffs have filed a suit tor a declaration that members of the plaintiff association and plaintiff No. 2 are tenants of the defendant with regard to residential accommodation allotted to them and, therefore, have prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its employees and agents from dispossessing them from the tenanted premises othsrwise than by dve precess of law. Alongwith the suit, this application has been moved under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) with the allegations that there are 185 members of the plaintiff association who are all tenants in different premises allotted to them. They are all employees of the defendant company and the facts pertaining to all these employees are identical in nature. They have she same interest in the subject matter of the suit and being workmen with limited income andresently out of employment, they would be subjected to high costs and inconvenience if they were to pursue separate suits. Therefore, both the plaintiffs seek permission of the Court to sue the defendant for the benefit of all its 185 member whose names and addresses are contained in the list annexed with the application.

( 2 ) THE defendant contested the suit as well as this application. In reply it has been alleged that even the suit as such is not maintainable because it is false and frivolous. It was also denied that any member of the plaintiff association is a tenant in the premises as alleged. It is also denied that the facts pertaining to all the emcolovees are identical in nature. The causes of action, if any, with regard to each of the plaintiffs were different, distinct and separate and, therefore, provisions of Order I, Rule 8 of the Code were not applicable.

( 3 ) I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the partics and same given my careful consideration to the controversy envolved between them. On behalf of the plaintiffs some authorities have been cited. The most relevant authority is The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Madras vs. T. N. Ganapathy JT 1990 (1) SC 172. (1) It was held by the Supreme Court:-

"the provisions of Order 1 of Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed. "

( 4 ) IN this case the appellant Board had settled a targe number of residential plots to different groups of applicants, including one described as low income group. The defendant. one of the allottees, filed a suit for permanent injunction, against the appellant in respresentative capacity restraining it from demanding or collecting from the allottees any additional amount for settlement of lands with buildings in the colony known as Ashok Nagar. There was an allegation in the plaint that the case of all the allottees in low income group of Ashok Nagar under the Lease Deeds were identical and the plaintiff was representing them in asking for permanent injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the belated supplemematry demands. It was in the background of the aforesaid facts, that the Supreme Court laid down the law cited earlier. The Supreme Court further observed that earlier there was some doubt about the applicability of Order 1, Rule 8 which now stands clarified by the Explanation introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act. 19"6. In the case in hand the callegation by the plaintiffs is that all the 185 employees have the same interest in the subject matter of the suit. Plaintiff No. 2. it is all