Judgment : Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order No.9 dated 11th February, 2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.508 of 2009. The petitioner being landlady of the suit premises filed eviction suit (Ejectment Suit No.508 of 2009) against O. P. No.2 Biswanath Banerjee as her tenant. As per plaint the tenant defaulted in payment of rent since September, 2008 and also sent a notice dated 11th of July, 2009 surrendering his tenancy right but without delivering possession of the suit premises to the landlady. Accordingly, the petitioner plaintiff filed said eviction suit under Section 6 (1) (e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The O. P. No.1 Keya Majumdar alias Mithu Majumdar claiming to be the divorced wife of O. P. No.2 defendant tenant filed an application dated 10th February, 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to be added as a party in said Ejectment suit. After contested hearing learned trial court allowed said application filed by O. P. No.1 by adding her as a party defendant in the suit. Being aggrieved the petitioner plaintiff has filed this revisional application. Mr. Probal Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner landlady, submits that there was no privity of contract in between the petitioner plaintiff landlady and O. P. No.1 being the divorced wife of O. P. No.2 tenant. He further submits that O. P. No.1 being the divorced wife of the O. P. No.2 tenant and having no order of residence in the suit premises was not entitled to be added as a party defendant in the eviction proceeding. He next submits that the O. P. No.1 being the divorced wife of O. P. No.2 tenant was neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit of eviction filed by the petitioner landlady against O. P. / tenant on the ground of surrender of tenancy as well as default. In support of his contention he has referred case laws reported in (2005) 3 SCC 313 (B. P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi Reddy and another) and (2005) 8 SCC 140 (Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee and another). Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order impugned. Mr. In support of his contention he has referred case laws reported in (2005) 3 SCC 313 (B. P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi Reddy and another) and (2005) 8 SCC 140 (Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee and another). Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order impugned. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya appearing for O. P. No.1, on the other hand, submits that O. P. No.1 along with her sons were all along residing in the suit premises the tenancy of which was taken by her husband being O. P. No.2. He further submits that O. P. No.2 husband filed a matrimonial suit being No.53 of 2003 against O. P. No.1 wife praying for divorce. In said matrimonial suit the wife filed a Misc. case under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for pendentelite maintenance and that after contested hearing the same was allowed which included payment of rent of suit premises by the husband to the landlady. He submits that after passing of the decree of divorce by judgment dated 24th of April, 2008 the O. P. wife filed another Misc. case No.47 of 2008 under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. As said Misc. Case is still pending, he submits, unless the O. P. No.1 is permitted to be added as a party in the pending eviction suit her interest will not be protected. He submits that this is more so as O. P. No.2 husband already stopped payment of rent and also surrendered his tenancy by writing a letter to the petitioner landlady and not contesting the eviction suit. In this connection he refers a case law reported in 1990 (1) CHN page 447 (Hiran Bala Debi & Anr. vs. Prodyut Kr. Mondal and others) to impress upon this court that as O. P. No.1 divorced wife is still continuing the possession of the suit promises and her application for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is still pending in the competent court of law, she should be permitted to be added as a party in the eviction suit to protect her interest. He further submits that the term “maintenance” includes provision for residence and as such the divorced wife should be permitted to try to protect her right of residence in the suit premises being a party defendant in the ejectment suit. He further submits that the term “maintenance” includes provision for residence and as such the divorced wife should be permitted to try to protect her right of residence in the suit premises being a party defendant in the ejectment suit. In this connection he refers case laws reported in AIR 2005 SC page 986 (B . P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi Reddy and another, AIR 2009 SC 636 (Komalam Amma v. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai & Ors.) and AIR 1982 Calcutta page 8 (Dr. A. K. Roy vs. J. C. Roy Choudhury and another). Admittedly, the O. P. No.2 husband was the tenant under the petitioner plaintiff landlady. The tenant paid rent up to August, 2008. He sent a registered letter dated 11th of July, 2009 with A/D to the landlady surrendering his tenancy right without delivery of possession. Accordingly, the suit for eviction was filed by the petitioner plaintiff against O. P. No.2 tenant under Section 6 (1) (e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Another facet of case is that O. P. No.2 husband filed a matrimonial suit being No. 53 of 2003 against the O. P. No.1 wife praying for divorce. During pendency of said matrimonial suit there was an order of maintenance including order of payment of rent of the suit premises by the husband to the landlady, in favour of the O. P. No.1 wife in terms of a Misc. Case under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. After contested hearing the O. P. No.2 husband obtained a decree of divorce against O. P. No.1 wife vide judgment dated 24th of April, 2008. Though the O. P. No.1 divorced wife filed a Misc. case being No.47 of 2008 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month but the same is reported to be still pending. In the backdrop of the aforesaid admitted facts the submissions of learned counsels are required to be considered keeping in mind the principles as laid down in the case laws referred by them. In the case of Komalam Amma (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court observed that maintenance necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Hon’ble Court referred to various texts of Molla’s Hindu Law to show right of maintenance as well as residence of a Hindu wife in the property left by her husband. In the case of Komalam Amma (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court observed that maintenance necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Hon’ble Court referred to various texts of Molla’s Hindu Law to show right of maintenance as well as residence of a Hindu wife in the property left by her husband. In that case the wife obtained a decree of maintenance against her husband and question arose how far the wife can claim over the house property of the husband to assert her right of residence. Unfortunately, the facts of said case are quite different from the fact of the present case and hence said case law has no application in this case. In the case of Dr. A. K. Roy (supra) this court held that where the application under Order 1 rule 10 was filed by the wife of real tenant to be added as a defendant in a suit for eviction in absence of her husband and the husband being tenant was not taking any interest in the eviction suit as matrimonial suit is pending between the parties, the wife having valuable interest of residence in the suit property should be permitted to contest eviction suit after being added as a party, to protect her interest. In the case of Hiran Bala Debi and another (supra) a suit for eviction was filed against husband tenant. The wife filed an application for being added as a party on the ground that she along with her children were all along residing their on payment of rent and that her husband was transferred to a distant place and was not keeping contact with the family. This court permitted the wife to be added as a party defendant to protect her right of residence thereupon. But again the facts of said case are different from the fact of the present case. In none of the aforesaid cases the applicant wife was a divorced wife. The case of B. P. Achala Anand (supra) has considered the right of a deserted wife as well as a divorced wife to be added as a party defendant in an eviction proceeding filed by the landlord against the tenant husband who was not taking interest in the eviction proceeding. The case of B. P. Achala Anand (supra) has considered the right of a deserted wife as well as a divorced wife to be added as a party defendant in an eviction proceeding filed by the landlord against the tenant husband who was not taking interest in the eviction proceeding. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Court may be noted as follows:- “A deserted wife who has been or is entitled to be in occupation of the matrimonial home is entitled to contest the suit for eviction filed against her husband in his capacity as tenant subject to satisfying two conditions: first, that the tenant has given up the contest or is not interested in contesting the suit and such giving up by the tenant-husband shall prejudice the deserted wife who is residing in the premises; and secondly, the scope and ambit of the contest or defence by the wife would not be on a footing higher or larger than that of the tenant himself. Such a wife would be entitled to raise all such pleas and claim trial thereon, as would have been available to the tenant himself and no more. So long as, by availing the benefit of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and rent control legislation, the tenant would have been entitled to stay in the tenancy premises, the wife too can continue to stay exercising her right to residence as a part of right to maintenance subject to compliance with all such obligations including the payment of rent to which the tenant is subject. A deserted wife in occupation of the tenanted premises on the other hand cannot be placed in a position worse than that of a sub-tenant contesting a claim for eviction on the ground of subletting. Having been deserted by the tenant-husband, she cannot be deprived of the roof over her head where the tenant has conveniently left her to face the peril of eviction attributable to default or neglect of himself. A deserted wife continuing in occupation of the premises obtained on lease by her husband, and which was their matrimonial home occupies a position akin to that of an heir of the tenant-husband if the right to residence of such wife has not come to an end. A deserted wife continuing in occupation of the premises obtained on lease by her husband, and which was their matrimonial home occupies a position akin to that of an heir of the tenant-husband if the right to residence of such wife has not come to an end. The tenant having lost interest in protecting her tenancy rights as available to him under the law, the same right would devolve upon and inhere in the wife so long as she continues in occupation of the premises. A suitable amendment in the legislation is called for to that effect. And, so long as that is not done, the Supreme Court responding to the demands of social and gender justice, needs to mould the relief and do complete justice by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the purpose of the holding as above is to give the wife’s right to residence a meaningful efficacy as dictated by the needs of the times. It is neither intended or proposed that the landlord’s right to eviction against his tenant be subordinated to the wife’s right to residence enforceable against her husband. Let both the rights coexist so long as they can. The case of a divorced wife stands on a little different footing. Divorce is termination of the matrimonial relationship and brings to an end the status of wife as such. Whether or not the divorced wife has the right of residence in the matrimonial home, would depend on the terms and conditions in which the decree of divorce has been granted and provision for maintenance (including residence) has been made. In the event of the provision for residence of a divorced wife having been made by the husband in the matrimonial home situated in the tenanted premises, such divorced wife too would be entitled to defend, in the eviction proceedings, the tenancy rights and rights of occupation thereunder in the same manner in which the tenant-husband could have done and certainly not higher or larger than that. She would be liable to be evicted in the same manner in which her husband as tenant would have been liable to be evicted.” The ratio of the case of B. P. Achala Anand (supra) was followed in the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in connection with the case of Ruma Chakraborty (supra). She would be liable to be evicted in the same manner in which her husband as tenant would have been liable to be evicted.” The ratio of the case of B. P. Achala Anand (supra) was followed in the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in connection with the case of Ruma Chakraborty (supra). In the case in hand, admittedly, a decree of divorce has already been passed as far back as in 2008 against the O. P. No.1 wife after contested hearing. No appeal has been filed against said decree of divorce. As such, the status of the O. P. No.1 is that of a divorced wife of O. P. No.2 tenant. Admittedly, no order of maintenance and / or of provision for residence was passed at the time of passing the decree of divorce. It is true that the O. P. No.1 divorced wife has filed an application praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from O. P. No.2 husband under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act being Misc. Case No.47 of 2008 and that the same is still pending. But as on date the O. P. No.1 being a divorced wife of O. P. No.2 tenant has no order of maintenance and or of residence in her favour. She also did not claim for any order of residence in the suit premises in her application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act. There was also no privity of contract in between O. P. No.1 divorced wife and petitioner plaintiff landlady. Under these circumstances the O. P. No.1 divorced wife had no right to be added as a party defendant to contest the pending eviction suit. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed on contest but without costs. The order impugned dated 11th February, 2011 is hereby set aside. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsels of the parties, if applied for.