Non-joinder objection in eviction proceedings failed where institute officials already represented the Union's interest in the premises.

The eviction order was restored because the non-joinder objection was treated as hyper-technical. The Court held that the Director, Deputy Director and Secretary of the Institute were already parties to the proceedings and sufficiently represented the Union of India's interest in the premises. On that basis, separate impleadment of the Union was not essential, and interference under Article 226 on this ground was unwarranted. The High Court's decision setting aside the eviction order was therefore found to be erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of eviction could be set aside on the ground that the Union of India was not impleaded, when the Director, the Deputy Director and the Secretary of the Institute were parties to the eviction proceedings and represented the Union's interest.

Analysis: The proceedings showed that the persons in charge of the Institute, including the Director, the Deputy Director and the Secretary, were joined as respondents and were the real representatives of the Union of India in relation to the premises. The objection that the Union of India was not separately impleaded was treated as a hyper-technical plea, because the parties on record sufficiently represented the Union's interest. Interference under Article 226 on that ground was held to be unwarranted.

Conclusion: The objection failed and the High Court was wrong in setting aside the eviction order; the order of eviction was restored in favour of the appellant.

---