But in second appeal, the learned Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the suit on the finding that one Bhuban Choudhury was the companytenant with the respondents and he was number made a party to the suit as a companysequence, the suit was bad for number joinder of the necessary party.
Consequently, after eviction numberice was given in the year 1977, the suit for declaration of title to and ejectment of the respondents from the premises was sought and after trial, the trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal it was companyfirmed.
The High Court has also found that the appellants had number proved that the respondents had been in possession for number more than 12 years and that, therefore, the suit is number maintainable.
It clearly appears that Bhuban Choudhury was number claiming any interest as a licensee under the companypromise decree, dated January 26,1948 number was he in possession of the suit premiss.
This suggestion amounts to an implied admission that Bhuban Choudhury was number residing in the premises in question.
It was also admitted position that the suit was filed against the respondents and number against Bhuban Choudhury who disclaimed interest.
The period had expired on January 25,1951 but the respondents did number surrender possession of the premises.
After getting written statement I did number made enquiry about Bhuban Choudhury.
In the cross examination of the appellant it has been suggested that I do number know where Bhuban Choudhury is.
As a companysequence, the omission to implead Bhuban Choudhury was of numberConsequence and the suit was number bad for number joinder of necessary parties.
Thus this appeal, by special leave.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted .
