Holding

The appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party and cannot be impleaded in the eviction suit; the dismissal of her application is affirmed.

Summary

The landlady filed an eviction suit against the tenant for sub‑letting without consent; the tenant had left the premises and his divorced wife, Ruma Chakraborty, remained only as custodian of their minor children. Chakraborty sought to be impleaded as a party defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, claiming a right to residence under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court and the Calcutta High Court dismissed her application, holding she was neither a necessary nor a proper party. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a divorced wife with a maintenance decree could be deemed a necessary or proper party in an eviction proceeding. The Court found no privity of contract between Chakraborty and the landlord, noted that the divorce decree limited her claim to maintenance for the children only, and affirmed that she had no direct legal interest in the tenanted premises. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' dismissal of the impleadment application.

Issues considered

Whether a divorced wife, who is a custodian of minor children, qualifies as a necessary party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in an eviction suit.
Whether she can be deemed a proper party based on a right to residence under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to add a party who lacks privity of contract with the landlord.
Whether the maintenance decree limiting her claim to the children precludes her from asserting a right to occupy the premises.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order I Rule 10(2)
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956s. 18, s. 23, s. 3(b)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13(b), s. 25
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956s. 13(1)(a), s. 13(2), s. 14, s. 16(1), s. 2(d), s. 2(h)

Subjects

evictionsub‑lettingnecessary partyproper partyOrder I Rule 10maintenancedivorced wifelandlord‑tenant lawWest Bengal Premises Tenancy ActCivil Procedure

Judgment

RUMA CHAKRABORTY A
v.
SUDHA RANI BANERJEE AND ANR.

OCTOBER 4, 2005

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder /, Rule 10(2)-Addition of
defendants-Requirement ofbeing either a necessary party or a proper party--
Eviction suit on ground of sub-letting-Landlady alleging that appellant, the C
divorced wife of tenant, was in illegal occupation without prior written
consent-Tenant not residing in the suit premises-But contesting the suit
pleading that appellant was residing in the suit premises only as custodian of
his minor children-Application filed by appellant for impleadment as a party
defendant-Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable-There was no privity
ofcontract between appellant and the landlady-Appellant had no locus standi D
to be impleaded as a necessary or a proper party-Tenancy-West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Act, 1956-Sections 2(d), 2(h) and /3(1)(a).

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956-Sections 3(b), 18 & 23-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 25 and I 3B-Divorced wife-Entitlement
to maintenance (including residence)-Terms and conditions of the divorce E
decree'-E.ffect of-On facts, while dissolving marriage, Matrimonial Court
with consent of the parties had ordered the husband to pay for maintenance
of the minor children only-Held: Wife by such consent order expressly waived
her right to maintenance.

Respondent no.I-landlady filed eviction suit alleging that after F
dissolution of marriage of the tenant (Respondent No.2), his divorced wife
was reduced to the status of a rank outsider/stranger and that she was in
illegal occupation of the suit premises without prior written consent of the
landlady, hence became liable to eviction under S.13(l)(a) of the West
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Respondent No.2 had effaced himself G
from the suit premises long prior to the institution oi the suit. He contested
the suit by filing written statement. He contended that the appellant was
residing in the suit premises only as the custodian of his minor children
who had every right to continue in possession of the suit premises as

1051 H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A members of his family.
•,
Appellant, the divorced wife of the tenant, filed application under
Order 1, Rule 10(2) for being impleaded as a party defendant almost 8
years after institution of the suit. Trial Court dismissed the application.
High Court concurred with the decision of Trial Court.
B
In appeal to this Court the question which arose for consideration
is whether the appellant is directly interested in the tenanted suit premises
by way of her entitlement towards maintenance which includes residence
and had a right to be impleaded as a party defendant in the said eviction
suit as a necessary or a proper party.
c #
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Trial Court and the High Court did not commit any
jurisdictional error nor acted with material irregularity in dismissing the
application under Order l Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the appellant.
D (1072-A-B(

-
1.2. The Court has no jurisdictional power to add a person as a party
who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. The appellant in the '

status of divorcee cannot claim interest in the suit premises either
independently or through her erstwhile husband and as such she cannot
E
be held to say that she is a party without whose presence the Court cannot
adjudicate and pass the decree. She is, therefore, not a necessary party.
The appellant is also not a person whose presence is necessary to enable
the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate all the questions
involved in the suit. (1071-F-G-HJ
F
1.3. Respondent No.2. contested the eviction suit by filing written
statement from which it is seen that he never allowed the appellant to
occl!PY the suit premises and that she is in possession of the suit premises
only as a custodian of the minor children of respondent no.2 and that the
monthly rents payable are being paid on account and on behalf of
G respondent no.2. Therefore, the appellant has no locus standi to be
impleaded in the suit either as a necessary or a proper party in whose
presence the suit ought to be or should be heard. The appellant has no
right to contest or defend herself nor a right to file and prosecute the
eviction proceedings. There is no privity of contract between the appellant
~
H and the landlady. (1064-A-B; 1070-C-DJ
RUMA CHAKRABORTY v. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE 1053 - ..
Khetrabasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral and Ors, 1200411 SCC 317; A
Dattatreya and Ors. v. Mahaveer and Ors., 12004110 SCC 665 and Hochtief
Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Ors., (1964) 7
SCR 596, referred to.

Dr. H.S. Rikhy and Ors. v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee, (19621
3 SCR 604; Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Ors., AIR (1958) B
SC 886; Dr. A.K. Roy v. J.C. Roy Choudhury and Anr., AIR (1982) Calcutta
8; Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 191;
Vijay lata Sharma v. Raj Pal and Anr., 12004) 6 SCC 762; Balvant N
Viswamitra and Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule and Ors., 12004) 8 SCC 706;
B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 313; Kumar C
Jagdish Chandra Sinha and Ors. v. Eileen K. Patricia D'Rozarie (Mrs), 119951
1 SCC 164 and India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Ors. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwal/a and Ors., 12004) 3 SCC 178, referred to.

Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 11947) 2 All ER 792; Middleton v. Baldock,
1195011 All ER 708 and Old Gate Estates, Ltd v. Alexander and Anr., 119491 D
2 All ER 822, distinguished.

Brown v. Draper, 11944) 1 All ER 246, referred to.

2.1. A perusal of Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 would clearly show that the intention of the E
legislature by including food, clothing, residence etc. was to provide a real
maintenance and not a bare or starving maintenance. The intention of the
legislature is further indicative from the words "also the reasonable
expenses of" appearing in clause (ii) of Section 3(b), clearly meaning
thereby that an unmarried daughter besides the expenses of food, clothing,
residence etc. is also entitled to the expenses of and incident to her F
marriage. The intention of the legislature becomes absolutely clear and
lucid from the heading and contents of Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956 which speaks of amount of maintenance.
Therefore, it can safely be said that what is implicit under Section 3 is
made explicit in Section 23. 11061-H; 1062-A-B-CJ G
2.2. In the instant case, while dissolving the marriage under Section
13-8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the matrimonial Court with the
consent of the parties ordered respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 200
p.m. for maintenance of the minors only. The appellant by such consent
order has expressly waived her right to maintenance. 11062-B-CJ H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 3.1. It was argued that the appellant was recognised by respondent
no.I-landlady as a sub-tenant. In support of the said submission, reliance
was placed on a letter written by the landlady to the appellant. But this
letter is of no aid or assistance to the appellant. (1071-C-D)

3.2. It has been stated in that letter that the appellant has been paying
B the rent on behalf of one Duttas and occupying the said accommodation.
The appellant was requested to get a confirmation in writing that he has
no interest in the ground floor accommodation of the house in question
and surrender the possession of the same to the landlady so that the
agreement could be entered into with the appellant on fresh terms if the
C appellant proposed to continue to stay there. The letter was concluded by ~·

saying that until these formalities are completed the occupation of the
ground floor accommodation by the appellant is unauthorised and illegal.
Therefore, one cannot agree with the submission of the appellant that the
landlady has so recognized the appellant as sub-tenant. [1071-D-E-Fl

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2565 of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2000 of the Calcutta High
Court in C.O./C.R. No. 582 of 2000.

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Sunita Dwivedi, Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms.
E Rani Mishra for the Appellant.

Rana Mukherjee, Sidharth Gautam and Goodwill Indeevar for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
DR. AR. 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.

G 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
appellant's application for being added as a party defendant under Order I
Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. The High Court concurred with the judgment and
order dated 02.02.2000 passed by the Illrd Civil Judge, Alipore. The High
Court rejected the plea of the appellant that she is directly interested in the .._
H tenanted suit premises by way of her entitlement towards maintenance which
RUMA CHAKRABORTY>·. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE (LAKSHMANAN, J.] J055

includes residence as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. A
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 B
case, very briefly, is that after dissolution of the marriage, the appellant is no
longer a part of the proforma respondent's 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/ C
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 (l)(a) of the Act and has become liable for eviction.
D
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 ~f the
recorded tenant who is still alive and contesting the suit who is Ion~ back
walked out of the suit premises parting with exclusive legal posses~ion/to the
appellant.
E
The appellant filed application under Order I 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 appellant's application on 02.02.2000. The appellant, thereafter,
moved the High Court in civil revisional jurisdiction and the High Court, by F
its judgment and order dated 26.09.2000, rejected the appellant's 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.

We heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for tl,e appellant and G
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.
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, made the
following submissions:-

(I) 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
B 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
c 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 maintenance which right includes right of residence.
D Consequently, the appellant had a right of her residence vis-a-vis
her husband and con·sequently her stay in the rented
accommodation of her husband could not be treated as illegal.

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, invited our
attention to the documents filed and, in particular, the notice dated 18.12.1989
E which was issued after the decree of divorce by the landlady and also took
us through the averments made in the plaint and in the written statement. In
support of her contention, she cited the following decisions:-

I. Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa
and Ors., [1964] 7 SCR 596
F 2. Khetrabasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral and Ors., (2004] 1 SCC
317
3. Dattatreya and Ors. v. Mahaveer and Ors., [2004] 10 SCC 665

4. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, (1947) 2 All ER 792
G 5. Middleton v. Baldock, (1950) I All ER 708

6. Old Gate Estates. ltd. v. Alexander and Anr., (1949) 2 All ER
822
7. Brown v. Draper, (1944) I All ER 246
H
RUMA CH~KRABORTY 1·. SUDHA RANIBANERJEE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] ] 057

Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents, made the A
following submissions by way of reply:-

(1) the view taken by the High Court is highly justified in the facts
and circumstances of the case and does not deserve any
interference by th is Court;
(2) That Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. envisages addition of B
defendants only in two specified cases:

(a) parties who ought to have been joined as necessary parties;

(b) whose presence is necessary for complete and effective
• adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit as proper c
parties;
(3) That the Court does not have the jurisdiction or the power to add
parties who do not fall under either of these two categories.
(4) Who are necessary parties have been made clear by the Act itself.
Only notifying sub-tenants are to be made parties under Section
D
13(2) of the Act. Only when the tenant obtains the prior written
consent of the landlord under Section 14 of the Act and both the
tenant and the sub-tenant have notified under Section 16( 1) that
the sub-tenancy may be said to be perfected and the subtenant a
notifying sub-tenant. Admittedly this is not the case of the E
appellant.
Therefore, he submitted that the appellant cannot be imp leaded as
a necessary party.
(5) So far as proper party is concerned, he submitted that the law is
firmly established that the intervenor has to show a direct legal F
interest as opposed to commercial or indirect interest in the subject
matter of litigation especially in a suit relating to immoveable
property. The intervenor has to show that in her absence some
order is to be passed which will affect her legal right. It was
submitted that the appellant not being a partv. to ,the/,,"
contractual G
tenancy is not able to claim any right, title or interest through her
divorced husband and that she has totally failed to demonstrate
any legal interest which would entitle her to be impleaded as a
proper party also.

H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A (6) The appellant being neither a necessary nor a proper party, there
is no machinery available at law to implead the appellant as party
defendant.

In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions:-

B I. Dr. H.S. Rikhy and Ors. v. The. New Delhi Municipal Committee,
[1962] 3 SCR 604
2. Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Ors., AIR (1958)
SC 886
3. Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha and Ors. v. Eileen K. Patricia
c D'Rozarie (Mrs) [1995] I SCC 164
4. B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and Anr., [2005] 3 SCC 313
5. Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and Anr., [2004] I
sec 191
D 6. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Ors. v. Bhagabandei
Agarwal/a and Ors., (2004] 3 SCC 178
7. Vijay Lala Sharma v. Raj Pal and Anr., [2004] 6 SCC 762
8. Balvant N. Viswamilra and Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule and
Ors., (2004] 8 SCC 706.
E
9. Dr. A.K. Royv.J.C. RoyChoudhuryandAnr., AIR(l982)Calcutta
8

We have carefully gone through the pleadings and other records and
also the judgments relied on by both the parties including the provisions of
F law under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Section 2(d) of the Act defines 'landlord' as follows:

"'landlord' includes any person who, for the time being, is entitled to
receive or but for a special contract, would be entitled to receive the
G rent of any premises, whether or not on his own account."
Section 2(h) of the Act defines 'tenant' as follows:

'"tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf,
the rent of any premises is , or but for a special contract would be,
:payable and includes any person continuing in possession after the
H
RUMA CHAKRABORTYv. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] I059
tennination of his tenancy or in the event of such person's death, A
such of his heirs as were ordinarily residing with him at the time of
his death but shall not include any person against whom any decree
or order for eviction has been made by a Court of competent
jurisdiction."

The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant B
has a right to be impleaded as party defendant. As per the appellant's own
avennent, the profonna respondent has divested himself of physical possession.
While dissolving marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, the matrimonial court with the consent of the parties ordered the
profonna respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 200 p.m. for maintenance of the C
minors only. The appellant, in our opinion, by such consent order has expressly
waived her right to maintenance.

Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads
thus:

""maintenance" includes-
D

(i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and
medical attendance and treatment;
(ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses
of and incident to her marriage;" E
Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads
as follows:-

"18. Maintenance of wife.- (I) Subject to the provisions of this section,
a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of p
this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her
lifetime.

(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband
without forfeiting her claim to maintenance,-
(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her G
without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her
wish, or of wilfully neglecting her;
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable
apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to
live with her husband; H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A (c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy;
(d) if he has any other wife living;
(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is
living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere;

B (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;
(g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separartely.

(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and
maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a
Hindu by conversion to another religion."
c (
Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads
as follows:-

"Amount of maintenance.- (I) It shall be in the discretion of the
Court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be
D awarded under the provisions of this Act, and in doing so, the Court
shall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section (2)
or sub-section (3 ), as the case may be, so far as they are applicable.

(2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded
to a wifo, children or aged or infirm parents under this Act, regard
E shall be had to-
(a) the position and status of the parties;
(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;

(c) ifthe claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified
F in doing so;
(d) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from
.
such property, or from the claimant's own earnings or from any '
other source;
(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act.
G
(3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded
to a dependant under this Act, regard shall be had to-
(a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the
payment of his debts;
H ...
RUMA CHAKRABORTY v. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 1061
}
(b) the provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in respect A
of the dependant;
(c) the degree of relationship between the two;
(d) the reasonable wants of the dependant;
(e) the past relations between the dependant and the deceased; B
(f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived
from such property, or from his or her earnings or from any other
source;
(g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under this Act."
~
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:-
c
"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.-(1) Any Court exercising
jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or
at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the
, p,urpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order D
that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance
and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a
term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the
respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and
other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just, and E
any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the
immoveable property of the respondent.

(2) If the Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances
of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-
section (!), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or F
rescind any such order in such manner as the Court may deem just.

(3) If the Court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order
has been made under this section has remarried or, if such party is the
wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband,
that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, G
it may at the instance of"' the other party vary, modify or rescind any
such order in such manner as the Court may deem just."

A perusal of Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
;:. Act, 1956 would clearly show that the intention of the legislature by including
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A food, clothing, residence etc. was to provide a real maintenance and not a
bare or starving maintenance. The intention of the legislature is further
indicative from the words "also the reasonable expenses of' appearing in
clause (ii) of Section 3(b), clearly meaning thereby that an unmarried daughter
besides the expenses of food, clothing, residence etc. is also entitled to the
B expenses of and incident to her marriage. The intention of the legislature
becomes absolutely clear and lucid from the heading and contents of Section
23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which speaks of
amount of maintenance. Therefore, it can safely be said that what is implicit
under Section 3 is made explicit in Section 23. In the instant case, while
dissolving the marriage under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
C 1955, the court. ordered maintenance for minors only with mutual consent.
According to Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant,
maintenance includes residence and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to
stay on in the suit premises as a licensee under her husband. The fact remains
otherwise. The husband parted with legal possession and not retaining any
D control thereof whatsoever without complying with the statutory provisions
of the Act which attract the provisions of Section 13(1 )(a) of the Act. Section
13(1)(a) of the Act is attracted where the tenant without the prior written
consent of the landlord transfers, assigns or sublets in whole or in part of the
suit premises. The contesting respondents case in the suit in para 4 reads as
E follows:-
"The defendant left the suit premises by inducting some strangers
outsiders sometime in the month of November, 1989. It may be
mentioned that the defendant took the tenancy for residential purposes
and in fact was occupying the same with the members of his family
p that is to say his wife and children. All of a sudden without the
consent of the plaintiff the defendant inducted some strangers outsiders
in the suit premises in contravention of the terms of tenancy and
(
allowed the said stranger outsiders to occupy a portion of the suit
premises along with the members of his family and the defendant
himself left the same allowing the said stranger outsiders to continue
G in occupation of the same illegally and without any authority
whatsoever." o
The husband of the appellant filed written statement. Para 7 of the
written statement reads as follows:-

H 'That with regard to the contention made in paragraph 4 of the plaint,
RUMA CHAKRABORTY v. SUDHA RANI BANERJEF. [LAKSHMANAN, J] J063
it is emphatically denied that any strangers and/or outsiders were ever A
inducted in the suit premises by the defendant at any time or at all.
As admitted by the plaintiff the defendant took tenancy of the suit
premises for the purpose of residing there with his family. It is totally
false to say as stated by the plaintiff that any stranger and/or outsider
was ever allowed to occupy a portion of the suit premises. The
defendant for his own business and professional activities has to live B
outside the suit premises keeping the members of his family viz. his
son and daughter in the suit premises in the care and custody of the
mother of the children, who has since been divorced by a decree by
mutual consent. The said divorced wife i.e. the mother of the children
has been staying in the suit premises only as the custodian of the said C
minor son and daughter of this defendant. The defendant as the father
of those minor children did never sever his connection with those
children. As such the defendant had no obligation to handover the
possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, particularly when his
dearest and nearest ones i.e. the children of his own both having the
right and claim of any property including this tenancy right unless D
divested by the defendant or under any law in force. The defendant
has already obtained a decree of divorce on mutual consent from a
competent court of law. Under the said decree, the children born out
of the wedlock were handed over to the custody of the wife and the
defendant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 200 every month to the E
wife for the maintenance of these minor children. The wife, by virtue
of the said divorce decree may not be the member of the defendant's
family, but the children cannot lose their right to remain in occupation
of the suit premises as the members of the family of this defendant.
This defendant, it is reiterated even at the cost of reputation never
allowed his ex-wife qua ex-wife to occupy the suit premises. She is F
therein the suit premises only as the custodian of the minor children
of the defendant, the monthly rents payable are being paid on account
and/or behalf of the defendant. In no stretch of imagination the lady
can be said to be in occupation of the suit premises instead of or in
place of the defendant. She is there only as the custodian of the minor G
children of the defendant who have every right to continue in
possession of the suit premises as members of the family of the
defendant. It is once again emphatically denied that the defendant did
ever or at all induct any stranger/outsider in the suit premises or in
any part thereof."
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A It is thus seen from the above averment in the written statement that the
husband ha~ never allowed his wife to occupy the suit premises and that she
is in possession of the suit premises only as a custodian of the minor children
of the defendant and that the monthly rents payable are being paid on account
and on behalf of the defendant. The husband also entered appearance in the
B suit and is contesting the suit by filing a written statement and, therefore, the
appellant has no locus standi to be impleaded in the suit either as a necessary
or a proper party in whose presence the suit ought to be or should be heard.

The trial Judge also in his order arrived at the following conclusion:-

(a) that the mere payment of money cannot create a jural
c relationship of landlord and tenant;
(

(b) the appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party which
is in conformity with the provisions .of the West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the well settled principles
of law governing addition of proper parties;
D
(c) that the appellant could not continue as a joint tenant after
dissolution of marriage;

(d) since the original tenant was alive and contesting the suit,
the question of representing the interest of the minor son
E could not arise.

On these findings, the trial Judge dismissed the appellant's application
for being impleaded as a party defendant.

The High Court of Calcutta, vide its judgment which is under challenge,
F concurred with the findings of the trial Court and has held that the trial Court
did not commit any jurisdictional error nor acted with material irregularity in
dismissing the appellant's application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C.

We shall now refer to the decisions cited by counsel for both the parties.
Though very many decisions were cited, we feel that it is not necessary to
G load this judgment by referring to all the citations. It is also not necessary to
multiply citations in this regard.

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
following judgments:-
....
H !. Khetrabasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral and Ors., [2004) 1 SCC
RUMA CHAKRABORTY v. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 1065
'
317. This is a case offiling of a writ petition filed by the selectees A
whose names were omitted by the State Government while
purporting to interpret the service rules, preparing a fresh list
without issuing notices to the candidates prejudiced thereby. This
Court remitted the matter to the High Court for decision afresh
after giving opportunity to implead all necessary parties. This
case will have no application for the case on hand because the B
writ petition was filed in this case by the selectees whose names
are omitted by the State Government. Therefore, this Court set
aside the order under challenge and remit the matter to the High
Court for decision on merits after giving an opportunity to the
writ petitioners to implead all necessary parties in the writ petition. c
2. Dattatreya and Ors. v. Mahaveer and Ors., [2004] IO SCC 665
This case deals with non-impleadment of proper party. In this
case, the material facts were not brought to the notice of the
Court and the persons who were ultimately to be affected were
avoided to be impleaded as parties. This Court held that it was D
merely not a question of non-impleadment of necessary parties
technically and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure, rather was very much a question of
proper parties being there before the Court particularly in the
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This
case has no application to the case on hand and distinguishable E
on facts and Jaw.
3. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, [I 947] 2 All ER 792
The King's Bench Division held as under:-"The parties were
married in 1924 and a son was born in 1929. In 1932 the husband
F
bought a house in his own name, and the parties resided there as
their matrimonial home until the husband left to live with another
woman. The wife obtained a decree of judicial separation and the
husband made payments for the support of his wife and son. The
husband applied under s.17 of the Married Women's Property
Act, 1882, for an order for possession of the house. G
Held: the court had a discretion under s.17 which was not affected
by the fact that a decree for judicial separation had been obtained,
and in the circumstances it would be unjust to make an order for
possession."
~

H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 4. Middleton v. Baldock, (1950] I All ER 708
The Court of Appeal held as under:-
"(i) where a husband had deserted his wife and the wife remained
in the matrimonial home she was lawfully there and the husband
rem11ined in occupation by her; possession of a dwelling-house to
B which the Rent Restrictions Acts applied could only be ordered
on one of the grounds specified in the Acts, and a tenant could
not by agreement waive the statutory protection afforded by the
Acts; and, therefore, the orders for possession were wrongly
made."
c Denning, L.J., observed as under:-
"The reason [why the husband cannot give possession] is because
the wife has a very special position in the matrimonial home. She
is not the sub-tenant or licensee of the husband. It is his duty to
provide a roof over her head. He is not entitled to tell her to go
D without seeing that she has a proper place to go to. He is not
entitled to turn her out without an order of the court: see
Hutchinson v. Hutchinson (5). Even if she stays there against his
will, she is lawfully there, and, so long as she is lawfully there,
the house remains within the Rent Acts and the landlord can only
obtain possession if the conditions laid down by the Acts are
E
satisfied."
5. Old Gate Estates, Ltd. v. Alexander and Anr., (1949] 2 All ER 822

The Court of Appeal held as under:-

F "A statutory tenant living with his wife in a flat which constituted the
matrimonial home left the premises following a quarrel with his wife,
and purported to surrender them to the landlords by agreement. His (
wife remained in occupation with the use of his furniture. On the
wife's refusing to quit the premises, the husband gave her written
notice revoking any authority which she might have from him to
G occupy the flat. In proceedings by the landlords against the tenant
and his wife for possession,

Held: the tenant had not given up possession, as he remained in
occupation through his wife and furniture, and, accordingly, his
statutory tenancy had not been terminated."
H
RUMA CHAKRABORTY 1·. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 1067
6., Hochtief Gammon vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa A
and Ors., [1964] 7 SCR 596

The matter arises under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore,. the
~ judgment is not adverted to.

All the above judgments, in our opinion, will not be of any assistance B
to the case on hand and all the judgments are distinguishable on facts and on
law.

Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the
''
following judgments:-
~

I. Dr. H.S. Rikhy and Ors. v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee,
c
[I 962] 3 SCR 604
'
.
This case was cited for the proposition that mere payment ofrent creates
no jural relationship. ..
D
2. Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Ors., AIR (1958) SC
886 This case was cited for the proposition of law that the question
of addition of parties under Order I Rule I0 of C.P.C. is generally
not one of initial jurisdiction of the court but of the judicial discretion
which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances
of a particular case. E
3. Dr. A.K. Roy v. J.C. Roy Choudhury and Anr., AIR (1982) Calcutta
8 In this case, the High Court held as under:

"Where the application under 0.1, R. l 0 was filed by the wife of real
tenant to be added as a defendant to the suit for ejectment in absence F
of her husband and her father-in-law, the ostensible tenant was the
benamidar of the real tenant, the wife could be impleaded as a party
' to the suit for the ends of justice as the rules relating to the joinder
of parties are based on the principles of avoiding multiplicity of suits
and also preventing possible conflict of decisions."
G
This is a case prior to the coming into force of the Benami Transactions
Prohibition Act, 1988. It was held that in the case of alleged Benami, the real
tenant who had not entered appearance in the suit and was not contesting the
same could be represented by his wife. In this case, matrimonial suit was
-~
. pending. At page 9 of para 9, it has been stated that in the absence of the real
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A owner, the wife can represent his interest till the marriage is dissolved by a
decree of divorce. In our view, both the courts below were just and right to
ignore this decision as it instead of holding the appellant comes to the direct
aid of the contesting respondent.

4. Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and Anr., [2004] I
B sec 191
This case deals with the case of transfer pendente lite without leave of
the Court. This Court held such a transferee cannot as of right seek
impleadment in the suit though normally joinder based on transfer pendente
lite is permitted to enable the transferee to protect his interest. This Court
C held the application under Order I Rule I0 was rightly rejected. t

5. Vijay Lata Sharma v. Raj Pal and Anr., [2004] 6 SCC 762, In
this case, it was alleged that on the death of the original owner the
appellant became the owner of the property. The respondent-tenant,
in his written statement, has stated that the property was not let out
D to him in his individual capacity but to his firm and that the rent was
paid to the appellant on behalf of the firm. At this stage, a third party
made an application for impleadment as a party respondent alleging
that the original owner had executed a Will bequeathing the property
to the temple. This Court held that the party seeking impleadment on
E the basis of Will was neither a necessary nor proper party to the
release proceedings. This Court also held that the question of title
could not be decided by the prescribed authority under the Act.

6. Ba/van/ N. Viswamitra and Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule and Ors.,
[2004] s sec 106.
F
In this case, this Court held that a sub-tenant in a suit for possession
by landlord against tenant is merely a proper party and not a necessary
f
party and, therefore, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to join the
respondents as defendants. This Court held as follows:

"A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made
G
effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order
can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final
decision on the question involved in the proceeding."

A very recent judgment of this Court in B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi
H Reddy and Anr., [2005] 3 sec 313 was strongly relied on by counsel for .
RUMA CHAKRABORTY v. SUD HA RANI BANERJEE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 1069
both sides. This Court considered the right of deserted wife to stay in the A
tenancy premises. This Court also considered the right of the deserted wife
to contest the eviction suit. Both the parties relied on paras 32-35 of the said
judgment. They are reproduced hereunder:

32. In our opinion, a deserted wife who has been or is entitled to be
in occupation of the matrimonial home is entitled to contest the suit B
for eviction filed against her husband in his capacity as tenant subject
to satisfying two conditions: first, that the tenant has given up the
contest or is not interested In contesting the suit and such giving up
by the tenant-husband shall prejudice the deserted wife who is residing
in the premises; and secondly, the scope and ambit of the contest or C
defence by the wife would not be on a footing higher or larger than
that of the tenant himself. In other words, such a wife would be
entitled to raise all such pleas and claim trial thereon, as would have
been available to the tenant himself and no more. So long as by
availing the benefit of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act
and rent control legislation, the tenant would have been entitled to D
stay in the tenancy premises, the wife too can continue to stay
exercising her right to residence as a pa1t of right to maintenance
subject to compliance with all such obligations including the payment
of rent to which the tenant is subject. This right comes to an end with
the wife losing her status as wife consequent upon decree of divorce E
and the right to occupy the house as part of right to maintenance
coming to an end.

33. We are also of the opinion that a deserted wife in occupation of
the tenanted premises cannot be placed in a position worse than that
of a sub-tenant contesting a claim for eviction on the ground of sub- F
letting. Having been deserted by the tenant-husband, she cannot be
deprived of the roof over her head where the tenant has conveniently
left her to face the peril of eviction attributable to default or neglect
of himself. We are inclined to hold - and we do so - that a deserted
wife continuing in occupation of the premises obtained on lease by
her husband, and which was their matrimonial home, occupies a G
position akin to that of an heir of the tenant-husband if the right to
residence of such wife has not come to an end. The tenant having lost
interest in protecting his tenancy rights as available to him under. the
law, the same right would devolve upon and inhere in the wife so
long as she continues in occupation of the premises. Her rights and H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A obligations shall not be higher or larger than those of the tenant
himself. A suitable amendment in the legislation is called for to that
effect. And, so long as that is not done, we, responding to the demands
of social and gender justice, need to mould the relief and do complete
justice by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution. We hasten to add that the purpose of our holding as
B above is to give the wife's right to residence a meaningful efficacy
as dictated by the needs of the times; we do not intend nor do we
propose the landlord's right to eviction against his tenant be
subordinated to the wife's right to residence enforceable against her
._
. husband. Let both the rights coexist so long as they can.
c 34. We have dealt with all the abovesaid a,spects of the law as it was
urged on behalf of the landlord, Respondent I that Smt Achala, the
appellant has no right to contest or defend herself in these proceedings
nor a right to file and prosecute this appeal as there is no privity of
contract between the appellant ancl landlord and the appellant is neither
D a tenant nor so recognised ever by Respondent I landlord. We cannot
agree. We feel that the appellant was rightly - in the facts and
circumstances of the case - permitted by the High Court to be joined
as a party to the proceedings. She was also rightly allowed to contest
the suit and deposit the rent in the court for payment to the landlord
for and on behalf of the tenant-husband.
E
35. So far as a deserted wife, whose status as wife has not come to
an end by a decree of divorce or by decree for annulment of marriage,
is concerned, we have made the position of law clear as above.
However, the case of a divorced wife stands on a little different
footing. Divorce is termination of matrimonial relationship and brings
F to an end the status of wife as such. Whether or not she has the right
of residence in the matrimonial home, would depend on the terms
and conditions in which the decree of divorce has been granted and
provision for maintenance (including residence) has been made. In
the event of the provision for residence of a divorced wife having
G been made by the husband in the matrimonial home situated in the
tenanted premises, such divorced wife too would be entitled to defend,
in the eviction proceedings, the tenancy rights and rights of occupation
thereunder in the same manner in which the tenant-husband could
have done and certainly not higher or larger than that. She would be
liable to be evicted in the same manner in which her husband as
H
RUMA CHAKRABORTY "- SUDHARANI BANERJEE [LAKSHMANAN,J.] l 07 \
tenant would have been liable to be evicted." A
The case on hand is a case of divorced \Vife. It is true that divorced
wife is also a wife. We have already dealt with the case of the appellant and
her right to contest or defend herself in the pending eviction proceedings. We
have already held that she has no right to contest or defend herself nor a right
to file and prosecute the eviction proceedings. There is no privily of contract B
between the appellant and the landlady. The tenancy is in favour of the
appellant's husband. The Family Court has granted a decree for divorce on
payment of certain sum by way of maintenance. As a matter of fact, the
appellant's husband, the tenant is contesting the Rent Control proceedings
and has filed a written statement denying the claim of the landlady. It was C
argued by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal on behalf of the appellant that the appellant
was recognised by the landlady as a sub-tenant. In support of the said
submission, she placed reliance on the letter written by the landlady to the
appellant on 18.12.1989. This letter, in our opinion, will be of any aid or
assistance to the appellant. It has been stated in that letter that the appellant
has been paying the rent on behalf of one Duttas and occupying the said D
accommodation. The appellant was requested to get a confirmation in writing
that he has no interest in the ground floor accommodation of the house in
question and surrender the possession of the same to the landlady so that the
agreement could be entered into with the appellant on fresh terms if the
appellant proposed to continue to stay there. The letter was concluded by E
saying that until these formalities are completed the occupation of the ground
floor accommodation by the appellant is unauthorised and illegal.

We, therefore, cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel for
the appellant that the landlady has so recognized the appellant as sub-tenant.
In para 35 above, this Court deals with the case of a divorced wife. We have p
already extracted para 35.

For the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Court has
no jurisdictional power to add a person as a party who is neither a necessary
party nor a proper party. The appellant in the status of divorcee cannot claim
interest in the suit premises either independently or through her erstwhile G
husband and as such she cannot be held to say that she is a party without
whose presence the court cannot adjudicate and pass the decree. She is,
therefore, not a necessary party. The appellant is also not a person whose
presence is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate all the questions involved with the suit.
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A In view of the discussion made above, we find merit and substance in
the submission made by counsel for the respondents. We are of the opinion
that the trial Court and the High Court did not commit any jurisdictional error
nor acted with material irregularity in dismissing the application under Order
I Rule JO C.P.C. filed by the appellant.

B The impugned orders, therefore, does not call for any interference. The
present appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed

(

...