The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Order 1 Rule 3 of CPC and the determination of necessary parties in a suit.

H.N. Sharma, J.

1. This first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1996 and 29.7.1996 respectively by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, West Tripura at Agartala dismissing the Money Suit No. 6 of 1990 filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. The appellant and plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of rent with interest from the defendants. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he is the owner and possessor of a holding at Ramnagar Road No. 7 as described in the schedule of the plaintiff. The said holding contains 2 buildings and one of the said buildings was leased out to the District Inspector of Social Education, Government of Tripura on monthly rental basis with effect from 1-1-1986. The parties entered into an agreement containing necessary stipulation of them lease, according to which the rent of the building would be fixed as per assessment as well as fair rent certificate to be issued by the Public Works Department, Government of Tripura. It is the further case of plaintiff-appellant that the plaintiff-appellant on good faith lease out the building to the defendants thinking that the assessment could be made by the Public Works Department with a reasonable time. But no such assessment having been made, the plaintiff-appellant was paid provisional rent at the rate of 600/- per month for the period from 1-1-1986 to 15-9-1989. The plaintiff-appellant further averred that as per the prevalent rate, the fair rent of the building leased out to the defendants would be at least Rs. 2,500 per month and the defendants are liable to pay the monthly rent at the aforesaid rate for use and occupation of the tenanted building for the period of occupation. The plaintiff-appellant also averred that the defendants have caused damage of the leased hold building during the tenancy period and they are liable to pay compensation for the damage of the building caused by the defendants. There was an amendment of the plaint vide order passed by the learned trial court on 5.3.1992 by which paragraphs 13(a) to 13(i) were incorporated. In the said amended paragraphs the plaintiff has averred that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff was offered a sum of Rs. 13,501.55 paise as rent for the premises but this amount is far less than which the plaintiff is entitled. That during the pendency of the suit the Public Works Department made an assessment of the fair rent and also made assessment of valuation of the land over which the building is situated and the said assessment i much below than the prevalent market price. It is further stated that in the nearby places land has been valued at Rs. 12,00,000 per kani by the Public Works Department whereas the land of the plaintiff has been valued at Rs. 4,70,000 per kani during the year 1987 and for the year 1986 the land was valued only at Rs. 3,00,000 per kani whereas the land at Ramnagar Road No. 8 has been assessed and valued at Rs. 8,00,000 per kani during the year 1988. In the aforesaid premises, the plaintiff made the following prayers : -

(a) Pass a decree for recovery of rent with interest at compound rate to the tune of Rs. 1,38,254/- (Rupees one lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred fifty four) only till 28.2.1990;

(b) Pass a decree for further interest for period from 1.3.1990 till payment of the decretal amount by the defendants to the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff would pay further court fee;

(c) Grant cost of and incidental to this suit to the plaintiff;

(d) Grant such further or other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the matter.

3. In the instant suit the plaintiff impleaded the State of Tripura, the Director of Social Education and Social Welfare, Government of Tripura, Agartala and the District Inspector of Social Education, West Tripura, Agartala as Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

4. The defendants contested the suit and filed a joint writt