JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition by Mrs. V. Howard against the order of Civil Judge Ajmer dated July 29 1987 dismissing her application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Smt. Shyam Rani Bhargava was the landlord of Bungalow bearing No. 4 AMC 484/1 situated at Ramble Road Ajmer. The ground floor of this bungalow along with garage and servant quarters and also common open compound had been let out by Smt. Shyam Rani Bhargava to M/s Northern Union of Seventh Day Adventists. The non-petitioner filed a civil suit for ejectment of her tenant in the said demised premises. One of the grounds of ejectment was that M/s. Northern Union of Seventh Day Adventists had sublet the demised premises in the year 1977 to the petitioner Mrs. V. Howard and she was in its occupation since that year as sub-tenant. In the aforesaid suit filed by Smt. Shyam Rani Bhargava the sub-tenant was not impleaded as a party to the suit. The suit against the tenant M/s. Nothern Union of Seventh Day Adventists was decreed ex parte by the Civil Judge Ajmer on January 8, 1987. The petitioner alleged that she came to know of this ex parte decree on May 5, 1987. She applied for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and simultaneously also prayed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead her as a party. According to the petitioner the ex parte decree for ejectment obtained by Smt. Shayam Rani Bhargava against her tenant was collusive and was obtained without impleading the petitioner as a party. This application was dismissed by the Civil Judge Ajmer by his order dated July 29, 1987. Hence this revision. 3. Before the Civil Judge Ajmer reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision in (1) South Asia Industries Private Ltd Vs S. Sarup Singh & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 346 and Single Bench decision of this Court in (2) Sanwar Mal Vs. Budh Mal (1983 RLR 377 = 1983 RLW 240) to impress that a subtenant if not a necessary party was at least a proper party in a suit for ejectment against the tenant. AIR 1966 SC 346 and Single Bench decision of this Court in (2) Sanwar Mal Vs. Budh Mal (1983 RLR 377 = 1983 RLW 240) to impress that a subtenant if not a necessary party was at least a proper party in a suit for ejectment against the tenant. Both these decisions have also been relied upon before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Facts in South Asia Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs. S. Sarup Singh & Ors. (Supra) were that the respondent were owners of certain premises in Connaught Circus in New Delhi which were let out to Allen Berry and Co. (Calcutta) Ltd. Some time in the year 1959 Allen Berry and Co. transferred the lease to the appellant and put the latter in possession. Alleging that the transfer had been made without their consent the respondents made an application under Cl. (b) of the proviso to Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 19.8 to the Controller against Allen Berry and Co. and the appellant for an order for recovery of possession of the premises from them. While the application was pending Allen Berry and Co. went into liquidation and was in due course dissolved and its name was thereupon struck off from the records of the proceedings. The Controller appointed under the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 heard the application and made an order in favour of the respondents for recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant also who was assignee of the principal tenant. It was South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. which came before the Supreme Court and it was their contention that the order for recovery of possession made against them after Allen Berry and Co. (principal tenant) has ceased to be a party to the proceedings was incompetent. It is pertinent to note that in South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. case it was the assignee of the principal tenant who contended that the proceedings against him were incompetent after the tenant had ceased to be a party to the proceedings. In the case before me it is the sub-tenant who is urging that he should have been impleaded as party to the suit along with the principal tenant. It is also pertinent to note That South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. case (Supra) was governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. In the case before me it is the sub-tenant who is urging that he should have been impleaded as party to the suit along with the principal tenant. It is also pertinent to note That South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. case (Supra) was governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. His Lordship Sarkar J. took pains to point out that he was not suggesting that an order for recovery of possession against the assignee tenant cannot be made. All that he was stating was that the clause did not intend to indicate the persons against whom an order for recovery of possession can be made and so it cannot be argued that the order could not be made against any other person except the tenant. There is no quarrel with this proposition. A landlord can implead the sub-tenant also alongwith the tenant in a suit for ejectment where one of the grounds for ejectment is that the tenant has sub-let assigned or parted with possession of the demised premises without his consent. It is again pertinent to note that the word -tenant' was defined in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 as including a sub-tenant. In the definition of the word 'tenant' given in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950. tenant is not inclusive of sub-tenant vis-a-vis the principal landlord. In this context the word 'tenant' appearing in Section 14 (1) proviso (b) of the Delhi Rent Rent Control Act. 1958 was interpreted Reference was also made to Sec l8 of the Delhi Act which contemplated an order for recovery of possession under Section 14 against a sub-tenant, It provided that where an order for eviction in respect of any premises is made under Section 14, against a tenant but not against a sub-tenant referred in Section 17, then in the circumstances mentioned a sub-tenant shall be deemed to he a direct tenant under the landlord. This section plainly implied that an order for recovery of possession against a sub-tenant was contemplated by Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section 1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Thus. This section plainly implied that an order for recovery of possession against a sub-tenant was contemplated by Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section 1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Thus. it is quite clear that the decision in South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd (Supra) was based on the provisions contained in the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 which are different from the provisions in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950. This decision therefore does not assist the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. So far as the decision of this Court in Sanwar Mal Vs. Budh Mal (supra) is concerned it may be mentioned that the plaintiffs in that case had themselves impleaded the sub-tenant as party in the suit and in that back-ground it was observed that in order to completely and effectively decide the question which arises. on the allegations made in the plaint itself as to whether the petitioner Sanwar Mal is a sub-tenant who has been unlawfully put into possession by the tenant Radha Kishan the presence of the petitioner would be proper. It was observed that although he may not be a necessary party but he was a proper party. This decision is therefore not an authority for the proposition that in a suit for ejectment by a landlord against his tenant a sub-tenant is a necessary party. 6. The provisions contained in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 190 are made to provide protection against eviction to tenants qua their landlords. It is for the tenant to claim protection if he so likes and if the tenant becomes ex-pane he does so at the risk of loosing the protection if an ex-parte decree is passed. I am of the opinion that the petitioner was necessary party in the suit and the landlord should not be compelled to implead him in the suit. In this view of the matter there can be no question of impleading the petitioner as a party after ex-parte decree has been passed against the tenant and when the petitioner has applied under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In this view of the matter there can be no question of impleading the petitioner as a party after ex-parte decree has been passed against the tenant and when the petitioner has applied under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The ex-parte decree was passed against the principal tenant M/s Northern Union of Seventh Day Adventists and they alone could make an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree if they so liked. Since no abuse of the process of the Court is involved it was also not in the interest of justice to implead the petitioner as a party under Section 151 CPC. 7. This revision has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.Revision dismissed on costs. *******