THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4204 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 14.07.2009 in I.A. NO.48 of 2009 in R.C. No.199 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead the first respondent herein as second respondent in R.C., was dismissed. 2. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/landlady contended that the premises in question was leased out to second respondent viz. M/s. Leela Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor Mr.Surender, but a specific plea has been taken by the second respondent/tenant that he had taken the premises in question on lease in his individual capacity, and so the present application is filed to add Mr. Surender, who is the Proprietor of M/s. Leela Enterprises, as a party to the case in his individual capacity, and that another Civil Revision Petition No.4207 of 2009 filed against a similar order in I.A. No.47 of 2009 in R.C. No.200 of 2007 between the same parties, has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2011, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. When the second respondent/tenant represented by Mr.Surender, had taken a specific plea that he took the premises in question on lease in his individual capacity but not as Proprietor of M/s. Leela Enterprises, the petitioner/landlady rightly filed the application to implead Mr. Surender as a party to R.C. in his individual capacity. Thereafter only, the points whether M/s. Leela Enterprises represented by its Proprietor Mr.Surender had taken the premises in question on lease or Mr.Surender had taken the premises in question on lease in his individual capacity, can be effectively adjudicated and the controversy can be decided once for all. The trial Court did not consider these aspects in right perspective and dismissed the implead petition. The matter is squarely covered by order dated 03.02.2011 passed by this court in Civil Revision Petition No.4207 of 2009. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, and consequently, I.A. NO.48 of 2009 in R.C. No.199 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, stands allowed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 10.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4204 of 2009 10.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4204 of 2009 10.2.2011 Between: Smt. Kamar Sultana also known as Kamer Hassan …Petitioner And K.Surender & another …Respondents