In a suit for ejectment, the court should not ordinarily add a third party as a defendant unless the third party has a direct and immediate interest in the property involved in the suit and it would be inequitable not to allow the matter to be fought out between all the interested parties completely and effectively in the suit.

ORDER:- These two revision petitions raise identical questions and arise in similar circumstances and as such they are disposed of by a common order.

2. The petitioner Brij Mohan Lal is alleged to be the previous owner of the properties in dispute, which he is said to have sold in one case to Smt. Lila Bai and in another case to Mohandas, by means of registered sale deeds. The purchasers filed suits for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent against Lakhunal and Ramjan Khan, who are the tenants in the premises which have been purchased by Lila Bai and Mohandas respectively. In the two suits filed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment by the aforesaid purchasers against the tenants, Brij Mohanlal filed applications under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C, for being impleaded as a party defendant. His case is that the sales, said to have been made by him in favour of Smt. Lila Bai and Mohandas, were benami transactions and were made without consideration and were invalid and void for various reasons including fraud and that Brij Mohanlal still continued to be the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and as such he was a necessary party in those suits. The applications filed by Brij Mohanlal were rejected by the trial court in both the suits and it was held that he was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suits for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the plaintiffs against the tenants.

3. In these revision petitions, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Brij Mohanlal Bhargava that in order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all disputes between the parties in the two suits, the petitioner was a necessary party in those suits. The submission of the learned counsel is that as the contention of the defendants-tenants in those suits was that they were the tenants of Brij Mohanlal and were paying rent to him, it was at least proper to add Brij Mohanlal as a party defendant in the two suits.

4. It is a settled principle of law that a simple suit for recovery of rent between a landlord and tenant should not ordinarily be converted into a suit for title in respect of the property of which the rent and possession is claimed. The statement of law as to who are proper parties in a suit for ejectment appears from the following passage from Dicey on Parties to an action:-

"The persons who have a right to defend in an action of ejectment are any persons named in the writ and any person who is in possession by himself or his tenant ..........The object of the plaintiff in ejectment is to obtain, not damages but possession of the land. He brings his action against the persons actually in possession, and if he succeeds e.g. though their letting judgment go by default, he turns them out and himself obtains possession. This may cause damage to a person, who owns but does not himself actually occupy the land and is therefore not made a party to the action."

The cases for recovery of rent and ejectment of tenant can be divided into two classes, namely,

(i) where the plaintiff has let the defendant into possession of the premises in dispute;

(ii) where the plaintiff is not himself the person who let the defendant into possession, but claims under a title derived from the person who did it. Now, the cases of derivative title can be further sub-divided into two classes, namely:-

(a) by assignment, including gift, sales, devise or lease; and

(b) by inheritance, including adoption amongst Hindus. The cases, where the plaintiff relies on derivative title, can be divided into two classes, i.e.

(i) where the defendant has attorned to the plaintiff; and

(ii) where the defendant has not attorned to the plaintiff.

In cases where the plaintiff has let the defendant into possession or in cases where the defendant has attorned to the plaintiff ordinarily the tenant would be estopped on account of the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the title of the plainti