### Owner May Evict Trespasser Without Impleading Tenant to Reclaim Possession of Property

The respondent (plaintiff/owner) filed a suit for eviction against the appellant (defendant) in 2016, alleging the appellant was a trespasser in the suit property.

The appellant contended he was inducted as a tenant by one Sita Devi Kapur, who was allegedly a sub-tenant under Central Calcutta Investments Private Limited (the primary tenant recognized by the respondent).

The appellant had previously filed Title Suit No. 1829/2010 in the City Civil Court to protect his possession, which was dismissed for default in 2018.

The Trial Court (Single Judge) decreed the suit in favor of the respondent on January 25, 2023, finding that the respondent proved ownership and the appellant failed to prove a legal right to occupy.

The appellant appealed on the grounds of non-joinder of the primary tenant and his alleged status as a sub-tenant.

1. Whether the respondent possessed the requisite legal status to institute the proceeding as the landlord/owner of the suit property.

2. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the primary tenant (Central Calcutta Investments Private Limited) as a necessary and proper party.

3. Whether the appellant established a valid tenancy or sub-tenancy that protected him from eviction as a trespasser.

The Court applied the principle that an owner can sue for possession against a trespasser without impleading the tenant, as the dispossession of a tenant constitutes dispossession of the owner, as held in Sadashiv Shyama Sawant v. Anita Anant Sawant (2010) 3 SCC 385.

The Court distinguished the precedent Hiralal Vallabhram v. Kastorbhai Lalbhai, AIR 1967 SC 1853, which requires impleading the tenant only when the owner specifically seeks to evict a sub-tenant through the tenant.

Additionally, the Court referred to Section 26 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which mandates that a sub-tenant must give notice of their sub-tenancy to the landlord within two years of the Act's commencement to gain legal protection.

The Court analyzed that while the respondent admitted Central Calcutta Investments Private Limited was a tenant in previous pleadings ("Exhibit-D"), the appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove his own status as a sub-tenant under Sita Devi Kapur.

The Court found that rent receipts issued by a Court-appointed Receiver did not create a tenancy, especially as they contained a disclaimer that no rights were created.

Applying Sadashiv Shyama Sawant, the Court reasoned that the respondent, as the established owner ("Exhibit-A"), had the legal standing to evict a trespasser directly without joining the primary tenant.

Furthermore, the appellant's failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirements for sub-tenants under Section 26 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, stripped him of any potential statutory protection.

It held that the primary tenant was not a necessary party in a suit against a trespasser.

The appeal (APD/7/2023) was dismissed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Judge dated January 25, 2023, were upheld, and the prayer for a stay on the decree was refused.