IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1016 of 2008 SUJEET KUMAR & ANR Versus KRISHNA GOPAL & ANR ----------- 2 17.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13.5.2008 whereby and whereunder his application for being impleaded as a defendant in eviction suit has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that as a matter of fact it is the petitioner who is tenant and somehow the plaintiff/opposite party by entering in collusion with one Sunil Kumar has filed the collusive eviction suit showing him (Sunil Kumar) to be a tenant. He has also relied on certain Kirayanama and rent receipt which in his opinion would go to show that the petitioner was the tenant of the premises in question which is the subject matter of the eviction suit. Counsel for the petitioner however, could not answer the query of this Court that where actually the alleged shop is being run by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner could also not satisfy this Court with regard to the story of the petitioner that he was running a shop in the premises in question and in fact, he has not even been able to say as to whether a licence for the shop in question under the provisions of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act had been obtained by the petitioner. The plea of the Kirayanama and rent receipt has been looked into by the Court below and it has been found that the duration of that Kirayanama was over whereafter the premises in question had already been vacated by the petitioner who is said to be gainfully employed somewhere else. Considering the fact that the Court below has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects, this Court would not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Court below. In fact, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This Civil Revision Application being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)