DWARKA PRASAD, J.—The only question, which has been raised in this revision petition, is as to whether the petitioner is a proper party to the suit for eviction filed by Budhmal and Manak Chand against Radhakishan.

2. The plaintiffs case is that Radha Kishan was their tenant in respect of the suit shop and eviction of the tenant Radha Kishan is claimed in the suit on several grounds, inter alia that he has sub-let the shop in dispute to the petitioner Sanwar Mal (Sanwar Ram). The defendant Radha Kishan filed an application admitting the allegations made in the plaint and has not contested the suit. The petitioner Sanwarmal filed an application in the trial court stating that he was the tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit shop and that Radhakishan has nothing to do with the tenancy of the said shop and that the petitioner Sanwarmal was in possession of the suit shop as a tenant from the plaintiffs. The petitioner prayed that he may be impleaded as a party to the suit being a proper party. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Churu by his order dated August 19, 1982 on the ground that the petitioner did not state in his application that he was a sub-tenant claiming under Radha Kishan, but he claimed an independent right of tenancy and as such he was not a peeper party.

3. In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was a proper party to the suit inasmuch as a collusive decree for eviction is likely to be passed on the admissions made by Radhakishan and that decree would be sought to be executed against the petitioner on the basis that he was a sub tenant, of the suit premises. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was a necessary party to the suit and he should be heard before a decree for eviction is passed on the ground of sub-letting. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioners urged that the plaintiffs should not be forced to add the petitioner as a party to the suit against their wishes, more-so as he was a sub-tenant inducted by Radhakishan. Learned counsel for the opposite party placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Kamlesh Kumar vs. Shiv Ratan(l).

4. It is well settled that a decree for eviction cannot be passed unless the existence of one of the grounds mentioned in Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 is established by the plaintiff. Sub-letting of the premises or assignment thereof, without the consent of the landlord, may be one of the grounds on which a decree for ejectment can be passed, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. After the defendant Radha Kishan has made an admission regarding the allegations made in the plaint, the court will have to give a finding, which may be based on the admission of Radha Kishan that Radha Kishan has sub-let the shop in dispute to Sanwarmal. The petitioner in his application claims that he is a direct tenant from the plaintiffs themselves and he was not a sub-tenant claiming under Radha Kishan, as such the petitioner is very much interested in the decision of the question as to whether Radha Kishan has sub-let the shop to him, which would be the very basis for obtaining a decree for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting If the question of sub-letting by Radha Kishan without the consent of the landlord has to be decided by the court, as a prerequisite for passing a decree for ejectment even against Radha Kishan, then the petitioner Sanwarmal is in my view a proper party to the suit. It is for him to defend his interest and to show that he was not a sub-tenant claiming under Radha Kishan but that he was a direct tenant let in by the plaintiffs themselves. It maybe pointed out that in the present case, the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that Sanwarmal was in possession of the disputed shop and his capacity has been described by the plaintiffs as that of a sub-tenant. The petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document