IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1184 OF 2010 Between: Tanneru Ramu and another …Petitioners A n d Gade Venkata Ramana and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1184 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.02.2010 in I.A.No.271 of 2010 in R.C.C.No.37 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking impleadment of the second respondent herein as second petitioner in R.C.C., was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed R.C.C.No.37 of 2006 against the petitioners for eviction. According to the first respondent, he purchased the schedule building from the second respondent herein, the proposed party, under a registered sale deed dated 29.12.2004 and stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner, the second respondent, and as such he is entitled to seek eviction of the petitioners/tenants. The petitioners filed a counter contesting the RCC. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners filed I.A.No.271 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the second respondent, the original owner of the building, alleging that she is necessary party to the proceedings in view of the defence set up by the petitioners in the RCC. According to the petitioners, the landlady fell in arrears of property tax and that the municipal authorities threatened to sell the shop and that when the petitioners informed the landlady she expressed that she is unable to maintain the property and offered to sell the same along with other two shops to the existing tenants and accordingly the petitioners purchased the petition schedule shop under an oral agreement for a sum of Rs.90,000/- and paid Rs.80,000/- towards sale consideration under receipt dated 21.09.2003 and, thus, he became owner of the said shop and, therefore, he is not liable to pay the rents from September, 2003 onwards. The first respondent filed a counter opposing the application for impleadment of the second respondent inter alia contending that the earlier application I.A.No.2753 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for the self-same relief was dismissed on 11.09.2009 and the second application is not maintainable and the alleged oral agreement pleaded by the petitioners is false and even otherwise their remedy, if any, is elsewhere and not in the present proceedings. 4. It is not disputed that earlier the petitioners filed I.A.No.2753 of 2008 seeking impleadment of the second respondent herein in the RCC and the said application was dismissed for default owing to non-payment of process on 11.09.2009. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioners field the present application for the same relief. That apart, even according to the petitioners, the first petitioner purchased the subject shop from the second respondent under an oral agreement in September, 2003 and ever since he ceased to be the tenant and the second respondent ceased to be the landlady. The first respondent herein contends that he purchased the shop room from the second respondent under a registered sale deed dated 29.12.2004. Thus, the claim of the petitioners is based on an alleged oral agreement with the second respondent, whereas the first respondent claims to be the landlord by virtue of the purchase of the schedule shop under registered sale deed dated 29.12.2004. Thus, both parties are claiming title over the schedule shop room and both of them would contend that the second respondent ceased to be a landlady. 5. The question as to whether or not the purchase of the shop room by the first respondent is true, valid and binding and whether or not the denial of title by the petitioners is bona fide and whether or not the petitioners continued to be tenants and rendered themselves liable for eviction, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court on evidence for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent. The presence of the second respondent is not necessary, as according to both parties, the second respondent ceased to be a landlady. A person who is admittedly not a landlord is neither a proper nor necessary party to the eviction proceedings. It is obvious that the present application is filed only to protract further proceedings in the RCC which was filed in the year 2006. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the remedy, if any, for the petitioners as against the second respondent pursuant to the alleged oral agreement of sale is elsewhere and does not lie in the present proceedings. The impugned order, dismissing the application for impleadment of the second respondent, does not, therefore, call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th August, 2011 Lrkm.