JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J.: This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 2.3.90, passed by Sri A. K. Dutta, Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 602, of 1985 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs suit for eviction was decreed ex parte. 2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. 3. By reason of a deed of lease dated 4.10.63 executed by (1) Amarendra Nath Boral, (2) Tarun Kumar Boral both sons of late Dunia Lal Boral and (3) Mrityunjoy Boral inducted Sm. Munni Ahirini, wife of Banwari Ahirini as a lessee for a period of 21 years commencing from 1st September 1963. Subsequent to the creation of the said lease, a suit being Suit No. 95 of 1978 (Mrityunjoy Boral vs. Sm. Taral Moni Dasi & Ors.) was passed wherein a decree for partition was passed by this court and in terms of an order dated 28.3.84, a partition was effected between Mrityunjoy Boral and Sm. Taral Moni Dasi and her son by reason whereof premises No. 21/1, Mahendra Goswami Lane, Calcutta, was allotted absolutely to the plaintiffs with their mother. It is stated that the mother Taral Moni Dasi executed a Will and thereby appointed the plaintiff No.2 as executor. The defendant is the son of the lessee Munni Ahirini. The said suit was decreed ex parte. 4. Mr. Prafulla Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Learned counsel submits that despite the aforementioned allegation made in the plaint, the plaintiff has not proved that the Will in question executed by her mother in his favour was probated, and in that view of the matter, the suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff, for the purpose of obtaining the ex parte decree, had merely proved the deed of lease, notice and the acknowledgment due. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the contention raised in this appeal has no substance. Even if the Will in question had not been probated, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit for eviction, in as much as, on expiry of the original lease, the defendant became a trespasser. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the contention raised in this appeal has no substance. Even if the Will in question had not been probated, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit for eviction, in as much as, on expiry of the original lease, the defendant became a trespasser. The plaintiff in his own right irrespective of the fact as to whether the Will was probated or not, remained a co-sharer and as co-sharer he had a right to evict a trespasser. It is not a case where the entire body of the landlords were required to be represented in the suit, as on the expiry of the lease, relationship of landlord and tenant ceased. In view of the clear position in law that a co-sharer can also maintain a suit for eviction of a trespasser and the decree passed therein shall enure to the benefit of all the co-sharers, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment and decree. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 7. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.