THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6062 of 2009 DATED:19-01-2011 Between: K. Purnachandra Rao .... PETITIONER And Capt. K.F.Pestonji and another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.08.2009, in I.A.No.888 of 2009 in O.S.No.245 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to get himself impleaded as second defendant in the suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. First respondent herein filed the suit for eviction against the second respondent-defendant, who, according to him, is the tenant. Petitioner herein sought to get himself impleaded as second defendant on the ground that he is the tenant of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. According to him, he paid rent till 10.07.2000 and subsequently due to accident he could not pay the rent and in the month of August, 2008 he offered rent to the plaintiff, but he refused to receive the same. He claims that he has filed R.C.C., seeking permission to deposit the rent. Plaintiff filed counter opposing the impleadment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not the tenant of the schedule premises at all and he is a total stranger and therefore he is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. 4. Before the trial court, petitioner filed Ex.A.1-receipt, dated 10.07.2000, and Ex.A.2-xerox copy of attornment of tenancy. Respondent-plaintiff filed Exs.B.1 to B.5. 5. On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge held that the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit as there is no material on record to show that he has anything to do with the suit property. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 6. First respondent herein filed the suit seeking eviction of the second respondent from the schedule premises. According to the plaintiff, 2nd respondent-defendant alone is the tenant and the petitioner, who is a third party, is a stranger to the schedule premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the petitioner herein. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is in possession of the schedule premises and he has filed R.C.C. seeking permission to deposit the rent and the same is pending. 8. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand would contend that it is only the 2nd respondent- defendant, who is the tenant in possession, and the petitioner, being a stranger, is not in possession of the schedule premises. First respondent-plaintiff is seeking a decree of eviction against the second respondent alone. If the petitioner is in possession of the premises as a tenant, as claimed by him, the decree of eviction, if any, that may be passed against the second respondent cannot be binding on the petitioner. The material on record does not disclose that the petitioner has been tenant of schedule premises as on the date of the suit. He is said to have paid the rent under the receipt-Ex.A.1 in the year 2000. For eight years thereafter, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner paid any rent to the first respondent. Even R.C.C. seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent was filed in the year 2009, subsequent to filing of the suit. As rightly observed by the trial Court, in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is a tenant of the schedule premises as on the date of filing of the suit, he must be treated as a stranger to the schedule premises and therefore he is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. The impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to come on record, does not therefore suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 9. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As it is stated that R.C.C. is pending, the observations made hereinabove shall not come in the way of disposal of the said R.C.C. on its merits. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY.J 19th January, 2011 Tsy