JUDGMENT : 1. The application (CAN No.3 of 2024) is devoid of any merit. 2. The appeal by the lessee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, from an order of their eviction obtained by the respondents from the learned court below is pending before us. 3. This application has been made by a dealer – Mrs. Kakali Patra – who, under a licence from the appellant-lessee, appears to have been selling petroleum products in the premises in question. The dealer seeks to intervene in these proceedings by being added as a party. 4. She has no such right. According to the submission made, the applicant was a bare licensee under the appellant. Even if the applicant is held to have been a sub-lessee, still she has no right to be impleaded or to participate in the proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in Rupchand Gupta v. Raghuvanshi (P) Ltd reported in AIR 1964 SC 1889 . The dictum of the court was as follows:– “It is quite clear that the law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sublessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act.” 5. The said decree for eviction against a sub-lessee operates against all persons who have been inducted into the premises by him. Those persons are not required to be made parties in the proceedings. 6. We note that the applicant did not apply before the learned court below to be added as a party and has approached this court at the appeal stage of the matter. 7. If the applicant claims any higher interest or right in respect of the said premises, she may avail of independent proceedings to establish such a right. 8. 6. We note that the applicant did not apply before the learned court below to be added as a party and has approached this court at the appeal stage of the matter. 7. If the applicant claims any higher interest or right in respect of the said premises, she may avail of independent proceedings to establish such a right. 8. The application for intervention – CAN No.3 of 2024 – is, thus, dismissed.