JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction. The plaintiff instituted a suit against his tenant Sudhir for recovery of possession of the suit premises alleged to be held under a tenancy governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The grounds for eviction were default in payment of rent as also sub-letting. In course of the proceeding, it appears, the plaintiff's application under section 17(3) of the Act was allowed and Sudhir's written statement against delivery of possession was struck out. While that application was pending one Ashok Kumar Das, the opposite party no. 2 in this Rule, filed an application on 18.1.73 for being added as a party to the suit. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. It may be mentioned here that in the plaint the plaintiff's case is that Ashok was an unauthorized sub-tenant under the defendant Sudhir. The learned Munsif, on hearing the parties, was of the opinion that since the suit is for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises the decree will directly affect Ashok Kumar Das and such decree again will be of no avail if Ashok Kumar Das is not impleaded, in the suit as a defendant. The Court was of opinion that a decree incapable of execution should not be passed and, accordingly, irrespective of his legal status, Ashoke Kumar Das's application should be allowed and he be added as a defendant in the suit. The plaint was, accordingly, directed to be amended by an order dated 23.4.73. The present Rule was obtained against this order. 2. It would appear from the application filed by Ashok Kumar Das in the trial Court that Ashok stated that he took this premises in tenancy right long before the plaintiff acquired title to the premises by a deed of gift. It was further stated by him that he was not a sub-tenant under the defendant Sudhir. That being the position it is obvious that Ashok was claiming independent title to the premises, independent of the defendant himself. It was further stated by him that he was not a sub-tenant under the defendant Sudhir. That being the position it is obvious that Ashok was claiming independent title to the premises, independent of the defendant himself. Accordingly a determination of Ashok's right or title in the suit premises would, in my opinion, be outside the ambit and scope of the suit and, it will not be proper in view of his case made in the said application to make him a party in this ejectment suit on his own application. It may be open for him to establish his title, if he has any, in respect of the suit premises as claimed in appropriate proceeding. For these reasons I am of the opinion that the impugned order in this Rule cannot be sustained also particularly in view of the opposition by the plaintiff and the same is hereby set aside. 3. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. There will be no order for costs. Let the records be sent down without delay.