JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is plaintiff’s writ petition. 3. Plaintiff petitioner filed O.S. No. 200 of 1996 against Bal Mukund respondent No. 3, Anil Kumar, respondent No. 4 and Rameshwar Das (since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 5 to 11). Relief claimed in the suit was for eviction of the defendants from the house in dispute. It was alleged that defendants were licensees. It had further been pleaded in the plaint that house in dispute was purchased through registered sale-deed dated 16.4.1927 by the father of the plaintiff. Defendants were sons of the descendants of Shiv Chand, real brother of plaintiff’s father. Defendants pleaded that house in dispute was joint Hindu family property. Their version was disbelieved by the trial Court/Civil Judge Senior Division, Mirzapur, which decreed the suit on 28.5.2002. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed on 18.10.2003. Against the said judgment and decree, Second Appeal No. 69 of 2003 was filed which was also dismissed by this Court on 10.8.2004. 4. After decree by the trial Court, plaintiff had filed execution case No. 17 of 2003. In the said execution case respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Smt. Radha Devi and Smt. Sheela Binnani filed objections under Order XXI Rule 95 to 102, C.P.C. claiming that they also had interest in the house in dispute and as they had not been made parties in the suit, hence decree could not be executed against them. Said objections were registered as Misc. Case No. 122 of 2004 and were rejected by the trial Court on 16.4.2005. Against the said judgment and order, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed civil revision No. 19 of 2005 which has been allowed by IIIrd A.D.J. Court No. 2, Mirzapur through its judgment and order dated 26.11.2005, hence this writ petition. Respondent No. 1 is mother and respondent No. 2 is real sister of Anil Kumar defendant No. 3/respondent No. 4. Revisional Court allowed the revision only on the ground that in Nagar Mahapalika records name of Shiv Chand, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and grand father of respondent No. 2 (who are mother and daughter) is recorded, hence they were necessary parties in the suit. Revisional Court allowed the revision only on the ground that in Nagar Mahapalika records name of Shiv Chand, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and grand father of respondent No. 2 (who are mother and daughter) is recorded, hence they were necessary parties in the suit. Revisional Court has recorded a very strange finding to the effect that mere fact that in the suit property was held not to belong to Shiv Chand but to Kishan Chand, i.e. father of the plaintiff petitioner could not make any difference. The judgment of the revisional Court is utterly illegal and without jurisdiction. Even finding of possession of objectors/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not been recorded. The executing Court cannot go beyond decree. On the one hand after the death of licensee occupying the house, only those of his heirs who are permitted to continue to occupy the said house after his death become licensees. On the other hand, even if it is held that all the heirs of original licensee occupying a house inherit the licence then their position would be of joint licensees. In case of joint tenancy, it is sufficient to implead some of the joint tenants in the suit for eviction vide AIR 1995 SC 676 , Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate and AIR 2001 S.C. 2251 , Ashok Chintaman Juker v. Kishore Pandurang Mantri]. Similarly it is sufficient to implead one or some of the joint licensees in a suit for eviction. The decree so passed will be binding even upon non-impleaded joint tenants/joint licensees. 5. By virtue of Section 56 of Easement Act licence to occupy a house is not transferable by the licensee. It cannot even be exercised by servants or agents of the licensee. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional Court is set aside and it is further directed that in addition to the damages for use and occupation payable by the defendants of the suit under judgment and decree passed in the suit, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who filed objections shall be liable to pay additional damages of Rs.1,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the objections, i.e., 21.10.04, till delivery of possession to the plaintiff/petitioner. 7. Writ petition is accordingly, allowed. ————