A society claiming to be the owner of the property in which the suit premises is situated cannot be added as a party to a suit for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

Civil Revision No. 371 of 1993 has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 20-8-93 passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 4/92 (T.S. 3/85 (old). By the impugned order the learned Munsiff allowed the prayer of Opposite Party No. 2 to be added as Pro forma-Defendant in that suit.

2. Civil Revision No. 372/93 in T. S. No. 7/92 (T.S. 4/85 old) has been filed by the plaintiff and there also by the order of the same date the Opposite Party No. 2 was added as pro forma-defendant in the suit, that is, (In T.S. No. 7/92 and T.S. No. 4/85 old).

3. Civil Revision No. 373/93 (In T.S. No. 24/92 (T.S. 3/85 old) also has been filed against the order of the same date.

4. Civil Revision No. 374 of 1993 is also filed against the order of the same date in Title Suit No. 23/92 (T.S. No. 2/85 old).

5. The Civil Revision No. 44 of 1994 has been filed by Lakhanlalji Mandir Suraksha Samitee against the order dated 24-1-94 passed by the Munsiff No. 1 at Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 5 of 1987 and by that order the learned Munsiff did not allow the application of this petitioner to be added as party in the suit.

6. The Civil Revision No. 45 of 1994 is also filed against the order of the same date in Title Suit No. 60 of 1984 rejecting the application praying to be added as pro forma-defendant. It may be stated herein that all these suits were for ejectment of the defendant under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and these suits are stated to have been filed on the ground of default and bona fide requirement. In such a suit the only necessary party is the landlord and the tenant, no other person has the right to intervene in such a suit. If that is allowed no suit will reach its finality and that will create a chaos and confusion.

7. The application which was filed by the Society to be added as a party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (sic) may be quoted to appreciate the contention made by this Society to be added as a party :-

"IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF NO. 1 AT TINSUKIA

Title Suit No. 2 of 1985.

Sri Lakhanlalji Mandir . . . . .Plaintiff.

v.

Sri Lachiram Agarwalla . . . . Defendant.

Sri Lakhanlalji Mandir Suraksha Samity, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, bearing Regn. No. 1200 of 1989-90 having its office at Daily Bazar, P.O., District-Tinsukia, Assam.

. . . . . . .Petitioner The humble petition of the petitioner under O. 1, R. 8(A); R. 10, C.P.C.

The petitioner abovenamed begs to state as follows :-

1. That with the donation of large numbers of deciples, devotees and well-wishers a temple with the deities were established on a plot of land measuring OB-2K-17Ls. covered by Dag No. 1757((Old)/4258 (New, of P. P. No. 350(Old)/681 (New) of Tinsukia Town and Mouza, situated at Daily Bazar (Station Road), Tinsukia.

Thus a religious endowment was validly created by installing Bigraha (Murty) Lakhanlalji along with the deities of Shiva and Hanumanji; and thus by way of Sankalpa Utsarga and Pratishha, dedicated the property to the deity Lakshanlalji which became the debutter property.

That with a view to look after and manage the aforesaid debutter properties including rented out to different tenant, (including the suit premises) a committee has been formed under the name and style of Lakhanlalji Suroksha Samittee (which is also registered under the Societies Registration Act) vide Certificate No. 1200 of 1989-90 issued by the Registrar of Societies, Assam, Guwahati.

2. That since the Sri Chakreswar was acting adviser to the interest of the said religious endowment, and as such the Lakhanlalji Mandir Suraksha District Judge at Tinsukia, praying for declaration, rectification of records and for injunction etc., in respect of the properties of the temple including the suit premises.

3. That with the Title Suit No. 69/89 the petitioner also filed a Misc. Case No. 46/89 and the learned Assistant District Judge at Tinsukia vide order dated 7-11-89 was pleased to pass