Collusion in ejectment suits requires dishonest purpose; non-impleadment of a sub-lessee alone does not invalidate an ex parte decree.

Collusion in an ejectment suit is not established by the mere fact that lessor and lessee are distinct corporate entities with common directors, that the lessee did not contest the suit, or that the sub-lessee was not impleaded. Collusion requires an improper act or omission for a dishonest or sinister purpose. A landlord's suit for possession against the lessee remains a legitimate enforcement action even if it incidentally affects a sub-lessee. On the facts stated, there was no basis to treat the ex parte decree as a sham or as procured by a dishonest arrangement, and the decree was held to bind the sub-lessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte decree in the ejectment suit was procured by collusion so as not to bind the sub-lessee.

Analysis: Collusion requires an improper act or an improper refraining from acting for a dishonest or sinister purpose. The mere fact that the lessor and lessee were distinct corporate entities with common directors, that the lessee did not contest the suit, and that the landlord did not implead the sub-lessee did not by itself establish collusion. The law did not require the sub-lessee to be impleaded, and a landlord's suit for possession against the lessee was a legitimate mode of enforcing rights even if it incidentally affected the sub-lessee. On the record, there was no basis to infer that the suit was a sham or that the decree had been procured by a dishonest arrangement.

Conclusion: The allegation of collusion was not proved and the ex parte decree bound the sub-lessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the decree in the ejectment suit was upheld as valid and effective against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Collusion in judicial proceedings is not established by a mere agreement not to contest a suit or by failure to implead a sub-lessee; there must be an improper act or abstention directed to a dishonest purpose.

---