JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. One Mst. Imaman Bibi and Gulam Bari as plaintiffs had filed a Suit No. 93 of 1974 for eviction against Abdul Sattar, opposite party No. 7. The original plaintiff having died, their heirs were substituted as plaintiffs in the said suit. The petitioner had applied for addition of himself as party defendant under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. The said application was filed on 26th April, 1983. By an order dated 21st November, 1994. the said application was rejected. Civil Revision No. 6 of 1995 was preferred against the said order. The revision was dismissed and the order dated 21st November, 1994 was affirmed. The order dated 26th July, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge XlVth Court, Allahabad in Revision No. 6 of 1995 affirming the order dated 21st November, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Munsif IIIrd Court, Allahabad in Suit No. 93 of 1974 has since been challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. M. Sinha assisted by Mr. P. K. Ganguly contends that the petitioner is the son of one Rahmat Ullah and that Mst. Imaman Bibi was the only daughter of the said Rahmat Ullah and Gulam Bari was the son of said Mst. Imaman Bibi. Therefore, as heir of Rahmat Ullah, he is the owner of the property. He disputes the title of the plaintiff. Therefore, he is entitled to be added as a party defendant in the said suit. Since the petitioner is a proper and necessary party, the suit cannot proceed without him. Therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
3. Admittedly, the suit Is for eviction of the defendants, who are alleged to be licensees in respect of the two rooms under the plaintiff. In a suit for eviction of licensee, the cause of action confines to the termination of the licence and refusal of the licensee to vacate the premises. Addition of party cannot be allowed in a suit by which the entire complexion, nature and character of the suit would be changed and the cause of action shall be substituted altogether by a new substituted cause of action. If the petitioner is added as a party to the suit, in that event the question of title in respect of the property involved in the suit would have to be determined inter se the plaintiff and the petitioner a third party. In a suit for eviction of a licensee. It is the plaintiff who has to choose as to whom he should evict. If the petitioner, a third party, claims title, the same cannot be decided within the scope and ambit of the suit for eviction of a licensee. If he has any grievance with regard to the title, he may file appropriate suit or take such other remedy as he may be advised. But cannot be impleaded as a party to the proceedings for eviction of the licensee since he is not a party. Any decree passed against him, cannot bind him. As such, he cannot be said to be a proper and necessary party to the proceedings.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned orders, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the same.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost.