1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner (plaintiff). Also heard Mr. I.H. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants).

2. The Title Suit No.42/2003 was filed by the petitioner under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') for eviction of the defendant on the ground of rent default and bonafide requirement. The suit was in respect of a shop room let out initially to the predecessor of the defendant, Pratap Chandra Chakraborty, who died on 21.12.1998. The defendant in their written statement, inter alia, contended that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. the widow, the son and daughter of the original tenant late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following 6(six) issues:-

'1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent of the suit room?

5. Whether the suit room is bonafide required by the plaintiff?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?'

4. During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited 5(five) documents, whereas the defendant also examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited 7(seven) documents.

5. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Cachar, Silchar, found that the defendant failed to prove that he paid rent for the months of February, March, April and May, 2003 and accordingly the defaulter issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff. Noticing that the plaintiff runs a business in the small room adjacent to the suit premises and that he needed the tenanted room for expansion of his business, the issue of bonafide requirement was also answered in plaintiff’s favour. However, the Court noted that the tenancy right is heritable and all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant Pratap Chandra Chakraborty had not been impleaded despite the objection of the defendant in their WS and consequently the Trial Court held that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties. Consequently despite the finding of rent default and bonafide requirement in favour of the landlord, the suit was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. The aggrieved plaintiff then filed the Title Appeal No.61/2005 and through the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2008 (Annexure-II), the Appellate Court observed that the defendant is conducting the business of his father in the name of 'Gautam Stores' and since tenancy right for the commercial premises is heritable, in the absence of all the legal heirs of the original tenant late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty, the suit was held to be not maintainable. Therefore although there was concurrent conclusion on the rent default and bonafide requirement in favour of the plaintiff, the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court by declaring that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the legal heirs of the original tenant and thereby the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

7.1 Assailing the legality of the impugned decision, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. counsel submits that the sole defendant was running the business on behalf of all the legal heirs of the original tenant and was also tendering the rent for the others. Accordingly it is argued that in a joint tenancy of the commercial premises, the impleadment of the concerned tenant, who was operating the predecessor’s business is adequate and there is no further need to implead the other legal heirs of late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty.

7.2 Referring that the interest of the sole defendant to be common with other legal heirs, Mr. Sahewalla argues that there is no clash of interest amongst the legal heirs and thus the representation by the sole defendant is sufficient for the ejectment suit, against the joint tenancy.

7.3 The petitioner also contends that when the bonafide requirement and the defaulter finding is rendered in the plaintiff’s favour, the ejectment decree against the representative defendant is executable and the non-arraignment of the other legal heirs of late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty will not defeat the suit.

8.1 On the other hand, Mr. I.H. Laskar, the learned counsel submits that the tenancy rights in respect of the shop room was inherited by all the legal heirs of late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty and therefore each successor should have been arrayed in the ejectment suit for an effective decree.

8.2 The counsel for the defendant further submits that at first the Court should have considered the maintainability issue and only when this issue is answered in the affirmative, other issues based on evidence should have been considered. But in this case, a wrong procedure was followed by the Court. The respondent relies on Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai reported in (2003)1 SCC 488 and on Praduman Kumar Vs. Girdhari Singh reported in AIR 1970 Rajasthan 131, in support of this contention.

8.3 The respondents’ lawyer refers to the definition of 'tenant' given under Section 2(f) of the Rent Act to project that the legal heirs of late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty will all be covered under the definition of 'tenant' and since the defendant in his WS stated that the rent was being tendered on behalf of all successors, the non-impleadment of the other legal heirs of the original tenant, will defeat the ejectment suit.

8.4 Referring to the evidence of the landlord Sushanta Kar (PW-1), the respondents contend that the landlord was aware of the rent being deposited in Court by all the legal heirs of late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty, but despite such knowledge and the maintainability objection raised by the defendant, the necessary parties were not impleaded and therefore Mr. Laskar argues that this Revision case should be dismissed.

9. In Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar reported in AIR 1985 SC 796, the Apex Court held that statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises is a heritable right of the legal heirs of the original tenant and they are entitled to same protection against eviction as afforded to tenants under the Rent Act. This Court in Ranjit Kr. Choudhury Vs. Gopeesh Chakravarty reported in 1996(1) GLT 279, by relying on the ratio of Gian Devi Anand (supra), held that the ejectment suit in the absence of all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant is not maintainable and the plea of non-joinder of parties would be available to a tenant, who is in fact a joint holder of the tenancy, on behalf of the other legal heirs.

10. In a given case, there may not be any clash of interest amongst the legal heirs of a tenant, but when the tenancy rights are inherited jointly by the legal heirs and a specific plea of non-joinder of parties is taken in the WS, the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to implead the concerned successors. But from the evidence of the PW-1 it appears that although the presence of other legal heirs of the original tenant late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty was known to the landlord, he refused to acknowledge the others and only recognized the defendant as the sole tenant for the suit premises. But in the process, the protection of the right of the other legal heirs from being unlawfully ejected was threatened and therefore on this ground, both Courts rightly held the suit to be non-maintainable for absence of the legal heirs of the original tenant. According to me this approach was logical and is consistent with the decision applicable for the inheritors of tenancy rights. When the definition of 'tenant' under the Rent Act includes everyone on whose behalf rent is payable, all the legal heirs of late Pratap Chandra Chakraborty would be covered under the expression 'tenant' and their non-impleadment would consequently be fatal for an ejectment suit.

11. Moreover in cases where preliminary objection on maintainability is raised in the WS and a legal issue on maintainability aspect is framed, to avoid unnecessary legal exercise, the Court should have first decided the maintainability issue because if this issue is decided against the plaintiff, there would have

been no occasion for the Court to consider the evidence and decide the other issues. But in this case, the Trial Court even while answering the maintainability issue against the plaintiff, went on to unnecessarily adjudicate the Issue Nos.4 and 5. This according to me was an avoidable exercise and is not consistent with the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in Abdul Rahman (supra). 12. Considering the above and having noted that the legal heirs of the original tenant were not impleaded despite the specific objection of the sole defendant, I hold that the decision on Issue No.3 was correctly given by both Courts and accordingly no perversity is noticed in the said decision rendered concurrently by both Courts. Because of this finding, this Revision petition is held to be without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No cost. 13. The Registry is directed to return the LCR along with a copy of this order.