” Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner (plaintiff). Also heard Mr. I.H. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants).

2. The Title Suit No.42/2003 was filed by the petitioner under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Rent Act' ) for eviction of the defendant on the ground of rent default and bona fide requirement. The suit was in respect of a shop room let out initially to the predecessor of the defendant, Pratap Chandra Chakraborty, who died on 21.12.1998. The defendant in their written statement, inter alia, contended that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. the widow, the son and daughter of the original tenant late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following 6(six) issues:-

' 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent of the suit room?

5. Whether the suit room is bonafide required by the plaintiff?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?'

4. During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited 5 (five) documents, whereas the defendant also examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited 7(seven) documents.

5. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Cachar, Silchar, found that the defendant failed to prove that he paid rent for the months of February, March, April and May, 2003 and accordingly the defaulter issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff. Noticing that the plaintiff runs a business in the small room adjacent to the suit premises and that he needed the tenanted room for expansion of his business, the issue of bona fide requirement was also answered in plaintiff” s favour. However, the Court noted that the tenancy right is heritable and all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant Pratap Chandra Chakraborty had not been impleaded despite the objection of the defendant in their WS and consequently the Trial Court held that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties. Consequently despite the finding of rent default and bona fide requirement in favour of the landlord, the suit was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. The aggrieved plaintiff then filed the Title Appeal No.61/2005 and through the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2008 (Annexure-II), the Appellate Court observed that the defendant is conducting the business of his father in the name of ' Gautam Stores' and since tenancy right for the commercial premises is heritable, in the absence of all the legal heirs of the original tenant late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty, the suit was held to be not maintainable. Therefore although there was concurrent conclusion on the rent default and bona fide requirement in favour of the plaintiff, the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court by declaring that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the legal heirs of the original tenant and thereby the plaintiff” s appeal was dismissed.

7.1 Assailing the legality of the impugned decision, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. Counsel submits that the sole defendant was running the business on behalf of all the legal heirs of the original tenant and was also tendering the rent for the others. Accordingly it is argued that in a joint tenancy of the commercial premises, the impleadment of the concerned tenant, who was operating the predecessor” s business is adequate and there is no further need to implead the other legal heirs of late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty.

7.2 Referring that the interest of the sole defendant to be common with other legal heirs, Mr. Sahewalla argues that there is no clash of interest amongst the legal heirs and thus the representation by t