Item- 16. sg 24-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 3293 of 2026 Broadway Centre & Anr. Versus Anjan Kumar Nandy & Ors. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay Mr. Vinaayak Chaturvedi Mr. Rajat Deb Sharma …for the petitioners Mr. Arjun Samanta …for opposite party nos.1&2 Mr. Amarnath Chakraborty …for opposite party nos.3&4 Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against an order dated 20th June, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 199 of 2021. By the order impugned, a third party has been added as a defendant in the suit for eviction filed by the petitioner against the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 sought for their addition in the suit for eviction filed by the petitioner against the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that they are claiming title in respect of the suit property. He submits that the addition of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 would result in the suit for eviction being converted to a suit for title. In support of such contention, he places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 388. He also places reliance upon a decision in the case of Gango Prasad Jhawar vs. Prabhat Jhawar & Anr. 2 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7959 in support of the aforesaid contention. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 submits that in terms of an order dated 22nd August, 2022 passed in FMA No. 1289 of 2021, the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are collecting rent from the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. He further submits that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are tenants under the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. He further submits that the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are owners of the suit property and the petitioners do not have any manner of right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. The learned advocate for the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 further submits that the petitioner is not the inducting landlord of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 submits that the said opposite parties filed a written statement along with a counter claim praying for a declaration that they are the bona fide joint tenants under the opposite party nos. 3 and 4. He further submits that since there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, the learned trial judge was right in allowing the prayer of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 for addition of party. In reply, Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners disputes the submissions made by the learned advocate for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner are not the inducting landlord of the 3 opposite party nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession against the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. The said suit for eviction was filed under the provisions of Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It has been stated in the plaint that the suit for eviction has been filed upon serving a notice upon the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 under Section 6(4) of the 19997 Act. The issue as to whether a person claiming right, title and interest in a property can be added as a party defendant in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against his tenant fell for consideration before this Court in Gango Prasad Jhawar (supra). This Court, after taking note of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. vs. Naba Kumar Das & Anr. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352, held that a co-sharer and/or co-owner with the plaintiff of the suit property is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff against the tenant. The relevant portions are extracted hereinbelow: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaklata Das (supra) laid down the principles of law which are to be taken into consideration while considering an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for eviction of a tenant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus- "11. There are some well-settled principles of law on the question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken into consideration while deciding the question which arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned Infra: 11.1. First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (landlord) against the defendant (tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, 4 only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. 11.2. Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff landlord has sought defendant tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, the eviction suit succeeds. 11.3. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal [Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, (1995) 6 SCC 580].) 11.4. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See Ruma Chakraborty v Sudha Rani 5 Banerjee [Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee, (2005) 8 SCC 140]) 11.5. Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one In whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding (See Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue [Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786].) 11.6. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co- landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co- landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan [Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan, (2016) 3 SCC 296 (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 331].)" 17. After laying down the aforesaid principles the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a co-sharer and/or co- owner with the plaintiff of the suit property is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff against the tenant.” The plaintiff/petitioner, being the dominus litis, has decided to proceed against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and accordingly filed a suit for eviction against them under Section 6 of the 1997 Act. In such a suit, the plaintiff/landlord shall have to plead and prove that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between them and the grounds on which the eviction is sought for. It is well-settled that the question of title is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The opposite party herein is claiming a right adverse to the right of the petitioner. For such reason, this Court holds that opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties in the instant suit for eviction. 6 The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 would vehemently contend that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have sought for a declaration that they are the tenants under the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 and for such reason, the decision in the case of Kanaklata (supra) cannot apply to the case on hand. By relying upon paragraph 11.1 of the Kanaklata (supra) he submits that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have claimed to be the tenant under the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are necessary parties in this suit for eviction. After taking note of the counter claim filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the counter claim. For the purpose of better appreciation of the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, it would be relevant to extract the Order 8 Rule 6A to Rule 6E hereinbelow: “Order VIII Rule 6-A: Counter-claim by defendant – (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up, by way of counter- claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on 7 the counter-claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. 6-B. Counter-claim to be stated – Where any defendant seeks to rely upon any ground as supporting a right of counter-claim, he shall, in his written statement, state specifically that he does so by way of counter-claim. 6-C. Exclusion of counter-claim. Where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter- claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counter- claim may be excluded, and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit. 6-D. Effect of discontinuance of suit. If in any case in which the defendant sets up a counter-claim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, and counter- claim may nevertheless be proceeded with. 6-E. Default of plaintiff to reply to counter-claim. If the plaintiff makes default in putting in a reply to the counter- claim made by the defendant, the Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter-claim made against him, or make such order in relation to the counter-claim as it thinks fit.” On a bare reading of the provisos of Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, it appears that the purpose of filing of counter claim is to set up a claim against the claim of the plaintiffs. Order 8 Rule 6A(4) states that the counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaint. No separate cause title has been given in the counter claim filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 while setting up such counter claim along with the written 8 statement. Thus, it is evident that though the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have prayed for declaration that they are tenants under the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 but the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were neither parties to the suit nor parties to the counter claimat the time of filing. The question would be whether the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 could seek a declaration that they are tenants under opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in the counter claim in the absence of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in the counter claim are matter to be decided at the appropriate stage. However, that by itself cannot be a ground for adding opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit filed by the petitioner for eviction of the opposite party. That apart, the petitioner, being the plaintiff, cannot be forced to proceed against party(ies) against whom he does not choose to fight against. It is well-settled that a party cannot be added if by way of such addition, the scope of the suit would get enlarged. In Gango Prasad Jhawar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noting that the suit in the reported case was a simpliciter landlord-tenant suit, held that the question of title cannot be decided in such proceeding and the impleadment of the applicants would change the complexion of litigation and raising such controversy is beyond the scope of the litigation. In the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 claimed that an agreement of tenancy dated 29th October, 9 2021 was executed between the opposite party nos. 3 & 4 and opposite party nos. 1 & 2. In the said application, the pendency of title suit nos. 1811 of 2019 filed by the petitioner against the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 has also been indicated. After going through this scope of the present suit which is the simplicitor suit for eviction filed by the petitioners claiming to be landlord of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and the case made out by the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the considered view that addition of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in the instant suit would change the complexion of an eviction suit between the petitioners and the opposite party nos. 1and 2 into a suit for title as against the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4. In India Automobile Ltd. (supra), it has been held that if addition of party amounts to or result in enlarging the scope of the litigation by changing the complexion of litigation, such prayer for addition cannot be allowed. The learned trial judge without considering the aforesaid aspect has allowed the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 as party defendants in the instant suit for eviction. The order dated 22nd August, 2022 passed in FMA 1289 of 2021 was passed in an appeal arising out of an order rejecting the prayer for injunction in Title Suit No. 1811 of 2019. Whether the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are entitled to collect rent from the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are not the subject matter of the dispute of this civil revision application 10 and for such reason, the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the order dated 22nd August, 2022 passed in FMA 1289 of 2021 cannot come to the aid either of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 or opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in the case on hand. For all reasons as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The order impugned stands set aside. The opposite party nos. 3 and 4 stands deleted from the array of parties and Ejectment Suit No. 199 of 2021. This civil revision application stands allowed thereby setting aside the order impugned. It is however, made clear that the observation made hereinbefore are all for the purpose of reaching the ultimate conclusion and the learned trial judge shall dispose of the suit being uninfluenced by the observations. It is, however, made clear that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 shall be free to take recourse under the law that may be available to them against either inter se between them or against the petitions in accordance with law. With the above observations, this civil revision application stands disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)