Honble LAKSHMANAN, J.–The appellant, who is an unsuccessful intervenor in both the courts below, is the divorced wife of the recorded sole tenant (second respondent herein) who is also the sole defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent herein Sudha Rani Banerjee. The instant appeal is against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2000 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 582 of 2000 rejecting the appellants application for being added as a party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. The High Court concurred with the judgment and order dated 02.02.2000 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Alipore. The High Court rejected the plea of the appellant that she is directly interested in the tenanted suit premises by way of her entitlement towards maintenance which includes residence as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

(2). The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:- As already stated the action arises out of a suit for ejectment filed on 28.03.1992 on the ground of default, subletting without the prior written consent of the contesting first respondent herein (plaintiff landlady). Her case, very briefly, is that after dissolution of the marriage, the appellant is no longer a part of the proforma respondents family having the status of a rank outsider/stranger and she was in illegal occupation of the suit premises in contravention of the statutory provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The proforma respondent/husband has admittedly effaced himself from the suit premises long prior to the institution of the suit retaining any control of suit premises. It is the case of the contesting respondent that the appellant is in illegal occupation without the prior written consent of the landlady and, therefore, has attracted the provisions of Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and has become liable for eviction.

(3). The sole defence taken in the suit is that the son and daughter are entitled to the tenancy right and virtually can step into the shoes of the recorded tenant who is still alive and contesting the suit who is long back walked out of the suit premises parting with exclusive legal possession to the appellant. The appellant filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party defendant before the Civil Judge, Alipore on 17.12.1999 almost 8 years after the institution of the suit. The Civil Judge dismissed the appellants application on 02.02.2000. The appellant, thereafter, moved the High Court in civil revisional jurisdiction and the High Court, by its judgment and order dated 26.09.2000, rejected the appellants application concurring with the finding of the courts below and finding no infirmity therein. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the above appeal in this Court.

(4). We heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respective parties took us through the pleadings, annexures and the orders passed by the courts below and other relevant records. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, made the following submissions:-

1) that the appellant being the divorced wife continues to enjoy the status akin to that of licensee under her husband in respect of tenancy of her husband pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3 and 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956;

2) that by precluding the appellant from contesting the suit, the suit would be decreed ex parte to the detriment of the appellant and her minor children who even after the said decree of divorce continue to have a right of residence in the suit premises and cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law;

3) that the High Court has failed to appreciate that even after the passing of a decree of divorce even though the marital status of the husband and wife is brought to an end, the divorced wife still has a right of ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document