IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 400 of 2006 (M/S) Shri Manohar Singh S/o Late Shri Gurbachan Singh ..……… Petitioner. Versus Additional District Judge and others ……… Respondents Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. T.C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Vashsith, the learned counsel for the respondents. A suit for ejectment and for possession was filed u/S 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by respondent No. 3 against respondent No.4 and, during the pendency, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. seeking impleadment as a necessary party. The petitioner contended that he is the owner and landlord of the premises, in question, and that respondent No.4 is his tenant who is paying the rent and, therefore, he is a necessary party. The tenant, apparently, in his written statement has also contended that respondent No.3 is not his landlord and that the petitioner is the landlord to whom he is paying the rent. Inspite of these averments coming on record, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the approach adopted by the Court below was patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. In the first instance, the impleadment of the petitioner will not change the nature of the suit which is with regard to eviction and for arrears of rent. On the 2 other hand, if the petitioner is impleaded, it will bring the correct facts on record and will ensure that the suit is not decreed on account of any alleged connivance between the respondent No.3 with respondent No.4. Prima-facie, the Court has to see as to whether the petitioner is a necessary party or not and, if the petitioner can establish by necessary documents that he is a necessary party, the Court should implead him. Since it has already come on record that the tenant has made statement in his written statement that the petitioner is the landlord to whom he is paying the rent, this Court is of the opinion that the impleadment application should be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The impleadment application is also allowed. The plaintiff is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the memo of petition before the Court below within three weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.07.2010 Shiv