This is an application under section 115 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 2.11.89 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1986 reversing an order passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1 Karimganj in Title Suit No. 188 of 1984. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows: The opposite party as plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 Karimganj being Title Suit No. 188 of 1984 praying for eviction and recovery of rent on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement. The defendant was one of the sons of one Raj Kumar Choudhury the original tenant who had died in the year 1969 leaving behind his widow, two daughters and two sons. 3. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement and contested the suit both on points of law and on facts. The defendant denied that he was a defaulter or that the property was required for bonafide purposes. The defendants further submitted that the suit was not maintainable in the present form due to defect of parties. The suit was heard by the learned Munsiff who framed four issues relating to the defaulter/bonafide requirement and defect of parties. The issue No.4 was as follows: Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties. The suit was heard and parties produced the witnesses and exhibited several documents. Finally the learned Munsiff decreed the suit only for recovery of rent of Rs.245/-but did not grant any other relief as claimed by the plaintiff. It held that the suit was bad for defect of parties as all the legal heirs/representatives, of the original tenant the deceased late Raj Kumar Choudhury, who had acquired heritable title to the said property were not made parties to the suit. The trial Court held mat the case of bonafide requirement was not proved. The plaintiff did not succeed on the ground of defaulter as well before the said Munsiff. The Munsiff however permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the money deposited with the Treasury on account of rent. As such the learned Munsiff decreed the suit for Rs.245/- and granted no other relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment before the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj. The Munsiff however permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the money deposited with the Treasury on account of rent. As such the learned Munsiff decreed the suit for Rs.245/- and granted no other relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment before the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj. The Asstt District Judge heard the appeal and allowed the same on contest. The Asstt District Judge set aside the judgment of the lower Court and allowed prayer for eviction of the plaintiff by an order dated 2.11.89. The Asstt District Judge held that in view of the registered agreement dated 2.12.1970 between the landlord and the said Ranjit Kumar Choudhury the defendant has become the sole tenant of the said premises and since he has defaulted in making payment of rent he was a defaulter and as such the plaintiff was entitled to get khas possession of the property. 3A. As against the said judgment and order dated 2.11.89 passed by the Assistant District Judge the present revision application has been filed and Mr. BK Das the senior counsel appearing for the tenant contends that the suit is bad for defect of parties inasmuch as all the successors of late Raj Kumar Choudhury were not made parties to the suit. It was stated that the said Raj Kumar Choudhury was the original tenant of the said property and he has taken tenancy from the original landlord Sri Biharilal Chakravarty. After the death of Raj Kumar Choudhury all the heirs and legal representatives of the said Raj Kumar Choudhury inherited all the rights under the said tenancy and the suit filed as against one of die heirs of the original tenant was bad and not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and essential parties. The same should have been dismissed by the Asstt District Judge as was done by the Munsiff. Mr. NM Lahiri, the senior counsel appearing for the landlord/opposite party submitted that the suit was rightly filed against the tenant with whom the landlord has entered into a fresh agreement after the death of the original tenant. Mr. Lahiri has submitted that on the death of the original tenant the defendant was staying at the said premises as tenant and he had entered into a registered agreement dated 1st Agrahayan 1377 BS ie 2.12.1970. On the basis of the said agreement Mr. Mr. Lahiri has submitted that on the death of the original tenant the defendant was staying at the said premises as tenant and he had entered into a registered agreement dated 1st Agrahayan 1377 BS ie 2.12.1970. On the basis of the said agreement Mr. Lahiri submitted that the defendant was the sole tenant of the said property and he was holding on the said property on the basis as tenant under the said agreement and not as one of the heirs of late Raj Kumar Choudhury. It was independent tenancy. granted by 'the plaintiff to the defendant as per the agreement which is Ext 1. It involved no other parties except the defendant Ranjit Kumar Choudhury so the finding of the trial Court was erroneous and the Asstt District Judge has rightly decreed the suit and allowed the eviction of the defendant from the said permises. 4. Mr. Das submitted that the agreement between the landlord and the defendant does not exitinguish the heritable right of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant and the agreement to the contrary can only be treated as non-est and void and will not be the basis for filing a suit without making all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased as parties and praying for a decree of eviction. Such a suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and cannot be maintained. Mr. Das draws my attention to the Order 1 Rule 9 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Codeand submits that at the earliest opportunity his client has raised the objection as to the non-joinder of parties before the trial Court and the same was considered by the trial Court who framed issued relating to the same. Mr. Das submits that the other heirs and legal representatives of the 4 deceased were necessary and essential parties to the suit and in the absence of the said parties the suit was not maintainable and was bound to be dismissed. My attention was drawn to the Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1985 ] SC 796 where the Supreme Court pleased to held as follows : "For an appreciation of the question it is necessary to understand the kind of protection that is sought to be afforded to a tenant under the Rent Acts and his status after the termination of the contractual tenancy under the Rent Acts. It is not in dispute that the long as the contractual tanancy remains subsisting the contractual tenancy creates heritable right and, on the death of a contractual tenant the heirs and legal representatives step into the position of the contractual tenant and in the same way on-the death of landlord the heirs and legal representatives of landlord become entitled to all the rights and privileges of the contractual tenancy and also come under all the obligations under the contractual tenancy. A valid termination of the contractual tenancy puts an end to the contractual relationship. On the determination of the contractual tenancy, the landlord becomes entitled under the law of the land to recover possession of the premises from the tenant in due process of law and the tenant under the general law of the land is hardly, in a position to resist eviction once the contractual tenancy has been duly determined." 5. Relying on the said decision of the Supreme Court Mr. Das argued that the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased stepped into shoes of the original tenant and the contractual right of the original tenant continues to subsist with the heirs and legal representatives. A contractual tenancy of the original tenant created a heritable tenancy in favour of the heirs and legal representatives and the said heritable right continued to be in effect so long the same was not validly terminated. In the facts and circumstances of the case Mr. Das submitted that at no stage there was any termination of the contractual tenancy nor the same was put an end by the landlord. Mr. Das in order to answer to Mr. Lahiri's submission that no rent was paid by any of the brothers and other legal representatives or heirs of the deceased after the death of the father brought to my notice the rent receipt issued in the name of Ran) it Kumar Choudhury one of the brothers who had paid rent after the death of his father but has not been made a party in the present suit. The said receipts and all the rent receipts have been made as Ext K (1) to (19) in the said suit. Mr. The said receipts and all the rent receipts have been made as Ext K (1) to (19) in the said suit. Mr. Das has further brought to my notice that the plaintiff in the suit at one stage had made an application before the Court below for adding other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased as parties to the suit and such prayer was allowed by the trial Court. The plaintiff however took no step to add other heirs and legal representatives as parties to the suit and proceeded only against the sole defendant. The suit as such was not maintainable and bound to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and essential parties. Mr. Lahiri on behalf of the landlord opposite party submits that the other heirs and legal representatives were not made parties inasmuch as they have no interest in the mattter nor they have made any application for adding themselves as parties. The defendant has entered into a registered agreement with the landlord whereby he had agreed to be a tenant-in terms of the said agreement. The suit filed was against the tenant as per the agreement and nobody comes into the picture. In any event the defendant who had become tenant under the agreement is estopped from raising the plea of non-joinder. According to the plaintiff the petitioner did not vacate the premises as per the agreement and as such served with the notice terminating the tenancy and on failure to vacate the premises the present suit was filed. Mr. Lahiri submits that the present case was not a case of derivative title but a title arising out of an independent agreement. Mr. Lahiri's submission was that after the aforesaid agreement all rights of other heirs and legal representatives had ceased and in fact no other heirs and legal representatives had ever claimed such right not even now such right is claimed by other heirs and legal representatives. The defendant who is party to the registered agreement cannot raise, the said defence as he is barred by the principles of estoppel. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of the counsel for the parties and held that heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant had stepped into the position of contractual tenants of the said premises on the death of their father. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of the counsel for the parties and held that heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant had stepped into the position of contractual tenants of the said premises on the death of their father. Admittedly the original tenant left behind him his widow, two sons and two daughters. Nothing has been disclosed in evidence that the said other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased are not staying at the said premises or that the said persons had, at any time, surrendered the said tenancy in favour of the defendant solely with landlord. They had acquired heritable rights in the said tenancy and the same continued to subsist between the landlord and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant. In this connection I refer to clause (f) section 2 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 which reads as follows: "(f) Tenant means any person by whom or on whose behalf rent is payable for any house and includes every person who from time to time derives the titles under a tenant." . The definition of tenant shows that not only the original tenant but also other persons who derive a title under a derivative title is also a tenant. As such a suit in the absence of all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-tenant as parties was not maintainable. The same was rightly dismissed by the trial Court inasmuch as all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant were necessary and essential parties in the suit, but they were not impleaded as parties. The landlord as plaintiff realised the importance of the same and obtained an order from the trial Court to make the said persons as parties, however, after obtaining the order for adding them as parties failed to do so. This was very fatal omission on the part of the landlord. 7. I further hold that the registered agreement of tenancy between the landlord and the defendant cannot extinguish the heritable rights of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. As such plea of non-joinder of parties would be availabe to a tenant who is in fact a joint holder of the tenancy and not a sole tenant and may have entered into an agreement with the landlord contrary to legal rights of others. As such plea of non-joinder of parties would be availabe to a tenant who is in fact a joint holder of the tenancy and not a sole tenant and may have entered into an agreement with the landlord contrary to legal rights of others. It is well settled that such consent cannot confer jurisdiction. So, when a right is a joint legal right of all the heirs, agreement by one cannot extinguish such legal rights inherited jointly by all. Such agreement in the eyes a of law is non-est and cannot give rise to any cause of action in favour of the landlord. A heritable right which is vested jointly in more than one person, such right cannot be extinguished by one person and that one person shall be able to raise the issue of heritable right and the defendant is not barred and estopped from taking it as defence in a suit for eviction. In the premises the order/judgment delivered by the Asstt District Judge as on 2.11.89 is set aside and the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 188 of 1984 is affirmed and the suit stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.