JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is a defendant's revision directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-I 1-1983 passed by S.i K.D. Shahi, learned Ill Addl. District Judge, Kanpur in S.C.C. Suit no. 100 of 1971, Smt. Sharda Devi v. Motilal. The suit was decreed for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages with costs. 2. The suit was filed by late Smt. Sharda Devi plaintiff for ejectment of defendant from the disputed premises, for recovery of Rs. 3120/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 283.50 as Bhumi Bhawan Kar, for Rs. 616.67 as mesne profits ; a decree for pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month till the actual eviction of the defendant from the disputed premises was further sought. The suit was filed on 24-11-1969. Smt. Sharda Devi, plaintiff expired pending this long drawn litigation. Snit. Uma Devi Shukla, widow of late Sti Shiv Krishna Shukla, son of Smt. Sharda Devi has been substituted in her place as plaintiff. 3. Defendant no. 1 was Moti Lal who was impleaded as Proprietor of the Firm M/s. Mahabir Rolling Mills, Fazal Ganj, Kanpur. 4. Defendant No. 2, Sri Khazan Singh, defendant No. 3 Sri Anup, defendant No. 4 Sri Lal Behari who died pending the suit and defendant No. 5 Sri Vijai Kumar were impleaded as sub tenants. 5. Dispute related to premises No. 85/29, Coparganj, Kanpur as detailed at the foot of the plaint. 6. plaintiff alleged to be the landlady of the house ; defendant No. 1 was alleged as tenant of that accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/- through a registered lease deed executed in favour of plaintiff in 1950. The term of the lease was three years. After expiry of that period defendant continued to be the tenant on the same terms and conditions. Defendant was liable to pay house tax and water tax to Nagar Mahapalika. 7. Defendant No. I was habitual defaulter. He (lid not pay rent from 1-10-1964 to 30-11-1968 for four years two months. Notice of demand dated 27-12-1968 was served but inspite of service of notice, he did not comply with it. He did not pay Bhumi Bliawan Kar from July, 1962 to 31-3-1967 amounting to Rs. 378/-. The plaintiff had claimed only Rs. 283.50 from 1-4-1964 to 31-3-1967. 8. Notice of demand dated 27-12-1968 was served but inspite of service of notice, he did not comply with it. He did not pay Bhumi Bliawan Kar from July, 1962 to 31-3-1967 amounting to Rs. 378/-. The plaintiff had claimed only Rs. 283.50 from 1-4-1964 to 31-3-1967. 8. The defendant sub let the major portion of the said accommodation to defendants nos. 2 to 5 and thus was liable to ejectment after service of the alleged notice dated 12-8-1969. 9. Defendant Nos. 2 and 6 Vimla Dixit filed their written statements separately which have no bearing for the disposal of this revision now. After the death of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, defendant No. 1, Moti Lal filed a written statement on 6-9-1972. He denied his liability and pleaded that the accommodation was taken on rent by joint Hindu family firm. A partition took place in that Firm amongst Jyoti 'Prasad Moti Lal and Narain Dass, Narain Dass became liable to pay the rent of the accommodation. Now the Firm was being carried on by defendant No. 5 Sri Vijai Kumar under the style Mls V.K. Industries well within the knowledge of plaintiff and her representatives. There was no question of any sub-letting. Other allegations were also denied. Defendant No. 5 Sri Vijai Kumar pleaded that he was not a subtenant in the accommodation in dispute which was a Rolling Mill ; tenancy has not been determined with a valid notice to quit ; the lease was for manufacturing purposes tenancy was not from month to month but it was for manufacturing purposes right from 1935 the inception of tenancy. He paid rent of the premises to Smt. Sharda Devi through cheques and after service of notice dated 27-12-1968 the rent was sent by cheques again. Plaintiff was not entitled to any Bhumi Bhawan Kar. 10. On the pleadings of parties issues were framed on 5-2-1973. 11. It appears that written statement of defendant No. I was struck off by order dated 17-4-1976. Revision preferred by him to this court (Civil Revision No. 2467 of 1976) was dismissed on 12-10-1982. Thus the suit proceeded ex-parte against defendant No. 1. 12. When defendant No. I was removed from the scene, plaintiff applied for deletion of names of defendants Nos. Revision preferred by him to this court (Civil Revision No. 2467 of 1976) was dismissed on 12-10-1982. Thus the suit proceeded ex-parte against defendant No. 1. 12. When defendant No. I was removed from the scene, plaintiff applied for deletion of names of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 vide his application paper No. 176 Ka, this was seriously opposed by defendant No. 5, Vijai Kumar filed objection paper no. 178 Ka dated 19 7-1976. Prayer of plaintiff was allowed on 31-7-1976 by learned Judge. Thus having removed all the defendants from the scene plaintiff secured an ex-parte decree by examining her Pairokar Shiv Balak Ram, P.W. 1. There was no evidence in rebuttal. The impugned judgment and decree were drawn. 13. Aggrieved by the decision this provision has been filed. 14. On behalf of the revisionist an application was made in this court on 3-1-1985 with an affidavit for adduction of additional evidence to show the original lease which was alleged to be for manufacturing purposes, to show partition in the family of defendants, to show that payment of rent by Vijay Kumar, defendant no. 5 alleged sub-tenant to the time of Rs. 18C0/- to Sri S.K. Shukla, the husband of Smt. Uma Devi, plaintiff unmistakably disclosed that he was in occupat on with the consent of the land lady and not sub-tenant of defendant no. 1 without the consent of plaintiff and was not liable to ejectment. It is further been shown that the aforesaid documents were not within the knowledge of revisionist at the time of proceedings in the court below and were material to the controversy involved and adduction to this evidence on a consideration of subsequent events was expedient in the interest of justice. The prayer has been opposed by the plaintiff on variety of grounds set out in their counter affidavit; rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed before me to show that adduction of this evidence shall he necessary in the interest of justice now in view of subsequent events which are noticeable by a court of law. In this connection reliance was placed upon Pasupulati Venkateshwarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1409. which posited that revisional Court could take cognisance of subsequent events under the Rent Control Act if such subsequent events dis-entitled the landlord from seeking eviction. 15. In this connection reliance was placed upon Pasupulati Venkateshwarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1409. which posited that revisional Court could take cognisance of subsequent events under the Rent Control Act if such subsequent events dis-entitled the landlord from seeking eviction. 15. Parties also invited my attention to the original deed dated 6th July, 1935 which is a registered instrument. 16. On behalf of the opposite-parties it was pointed out that first deed had been cancelled through unregistered lease dated 19-9-1949 and so no right or liability could flow under the original lease deed. The contention of revisionist was that this document being unregistered one could not be looked into for any purpose whatsoever; atleast it could not be held that the rate of rent or the period of tenancy were collateral purposes vide Zarif Ahmad and another v. Satish Kumar and another, 1983 A.R.C. 430. which posited :- "(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 107 Registration Act, 1908 Sections 16 (1) (d) and 49 and its proviso-Lease deed required to be registered under Section 107-If not registered-Effect. Explained such lease deed cannot be taken into evidence except for collateral purposes in view of Section 49 and its proviso-collateral purpose-concept of- Given." As the suit is being remanded for reasons laid below these documents and application and objection filed in revision shall be same to court below for disposal. 17. I have carefully gone through the record and find that statement of Shiv Palak Pam although recorded in e-xparte proceedings, could not disclose the functioning of the Mill within the disputed premises as in cross-examination he expressed ignorance about running of the Mill inside the accommodation. He conceded that he did not enter the premises and so did not know about it at all. He also did not state anything about the purpose of the lease which as the subject matter of an issue earlier in this proceeding. Notice to quit was not duly proved in accordance with Section 47 or 67 of the Indian Evidence Act nor that notice was admitted by defendants and in the circumstances, even though the judgment was recorded by learned Judge exparte it does not satisfy the requirements of law. Even if the defendant does not choose to appear in a case, that by itself was not sufficient to entitle the Court to jump to the con. Even if the defendant does not choose to appear in a case, that by itself was not sufficient to entitle the Court to jump to the con. elusion that plaintiff was entitled to the claim made by him. Plaintiff was required to prove her case, as held in State of West Bengal v. Lakshmi Narayan Singh and another, AIR 1956 Calcutta 87. and in Narvadev Singh v. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others., 1983 A.R.C. 814' It was posited in Narvadey Singh v. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, (supra) : "True is that the written statement had been struck off and that the petitioner cannot be permitted to make any agument which would require investigation of facts which would have required his pleadings: Still it was the duty of the Judge Small Causes to consider the question about the right of plaintiff to get the decree in the present suit In exparte proceedings, the court is as much bound to pass a legs order as in a case which may be contested. The absence of the defendants, does not absolve the court from acting according to law. I nobody else the courts are bound to act and discharge their duties in a legal manner. The court is bound to dismiss the plaintiff's claim if the plaintiff is not legally entitled to it, even in an exparte proceeding." 18. I respectfully agree with these observations and find that the evidence of P.W. 1, Shree Balak Ram fell short of the requirements of proof. Learned trial Judge did not divert his attention to the issues which had been drawn and which were to be answered by him. 19. Defendants nos. 2 to 5 who were admittedly in occupation of the disputed premises at the time of institution of this suit could not be said to be unnecessary parties but they were proper they were proper parties. In order to seek their ejectment it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove her case that they were mere sub-tenants without the consent of defendant no. 1. It was held in Messers. Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala and others, AIR 1953 Supreme Court p. 73. In order to seek their ejectment it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove her case that they were mere sub-tenants without the consent of defendant no. 1. It was held in Messers. Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala and others, AIR 1953 Supreme Court p. 73. :- "Apart from that section, under the ordinary law a decree for possession passed against a tenant in a suit for ejectment is binding on a person claiming title under or through that tenant and is executable against such person whether or not he was or was not a party to the r suit. The non-joinder of such a person does not render the decree any the less binding on him. It is in this sense, therefore, that he is not a necessary party to an ejectment suit against the tenant. It is however, recognised that such a person is, nevertheless, a proper party to the suit in order that the question whether the lease has been properly determined and the landlord plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the premises may be decided in his presence so that he may have the opportunity to see that there is no conclusion between the landlord and the tenant under or through whom he claims and to seek protection under the Act, if he is entitled to any. Such a person may be joined as a party to the suit from the beginning of the suit or at any later stage of the suit if the Court thinks fit to do so. The joinder of such a proper party cannot alter the character of the suit and does not make the suit any the less a suit between the landlord and the tenant or take it out of 5.28 of the Act. To hold otherwise will be to encourage multiplicity of suits which will result in no end of inconvenience and confusion." 20. In the instant case plaintiff herself was under the necessity to implead such persons like Vijai Kumar even earlier; payment of rent made by him was accepted by the husband of the landlady. It would be grossly unjust to render defendant no. I liable again for the same amount which her husband had already received towards the arrears of rent etc.. It would be grossly unjust to render defendant no. I liable again for the same amount which her husband had already received towards the arrears of rent etc.. So they were mot proper parties to the suit and the deletion order 31-7-1976 was an order improperly procured by the plaintiff simply to remove all the defendants from the field and thus to prove her claim exparte. This device has simply set at naught justice and cannot be countenanced by any court of law. 21. In the result revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The case is remitted to the court concerned for disposal afresh in accordance with law. 22. The applications of the revisionist dated 3-1-1985 alongwith counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed are also sent berewith to the court below for disposal in accordance with law. 23. Order of learned trial Judge dated 31-7-1976 for deletion of names of defendants nos. 2 to 5 is vacated. Out of defendants nos. 2 to 5 defendant no. 5 only who is alive can contest the suit. Evidence already on record that be admitted as evidence in this suit after remand also. An opportunity shall be afforded to the parties viz. plaintiff and defendant 5 to adduce such further evidence oral or documentary as they are minded. Specific findings shall be recorded by learned trial Judge on all the issues drawn on 5-2-1973. It is further made plain that no opportunity shall be allowed to defendant no. Ito contest the suit as his defence has already been struck off and that order has already been confirmed in Civil Revision no. 2467 of 1976 by this Court on 12th October, 1982. 24. Costs of this court shall be easy. Costs of the court below shall be costs in the cause. 25. Stay order dated 30-1-1984 is vacated herewith. The amount already deposited in court towards arrears of rent and damages shall be withdrawn by plaintiff-landlady subject to adjustments of the liability of defendants nos. 1 and 5 in this suit. Send the record forthwith to the court below for a quick dispatch.