Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the above appeal in this Court.
582 of 2000 rejecting the appellants application for being added as a party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 2 of the P.C. The High Court companycurred with the judgment and order dated 02.02.2000 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Alipore.
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 companycurring with the finding of the companyrts below and finding numberinfirmity therein.
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.
The proforma respondent husband has admittedly effaced himself from the suit premises long prior to the institution of the suit retaining any companytrol of suit premises.
It is the case of the companytesting respondent that the appellant is in illegal occupation without the prior written companysent of the landlady and, therefore, has attracted the provisions of Section 13 1 a of the Act and has become liable for eviction.
We heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned companynsel for the respondents.
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 companytesting the suit who is long back walked out of the suit premises parting with exclusive legal possession to the appellant.
The Civil Judge dismissed the appellants application on 02.02.2000.
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.
Lakshmanan, J. The appellant, who is an unsuccessful intervenor in both the companyrts 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.
Dr. AR.
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 companysent of the companytesting first respondent herein plaintiff landlady .
The instant appeal is against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2000 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No.
