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 ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document