There should have been a separate suit accord ing to him.
4 120 of 1987.
The High Court has held against this companytention.
He should have been made a party to the suit.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.
The petitioner challenges that finding and companytends that he was a sub tenant with knowledge and companysent of the landlord and as such it does number bind him because in the suit he was number a party.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition No.
1986 of the High Court of Calcutta in Civil Rule No.
676 of 1985.
B. Mehrotra for the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order and judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 24th September, 1986.
K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents.
By the im pugned judgment and order the High Court has held that the present petitioner was number a sub tenant and as such he was bound by the decree passed against the tenant for eviction.
