THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3450 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 137 of 2010 in R.C. No.350 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Rent Controller dismissed the I.A filed for impleading the petitioner as respondent No.3 in the main R.C. The petitioner filed the aforesaid I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking to implead him as respondent No.3 in the main R.C. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner has stated that respondent No.2 is originally the tenant of the petition schedule premises. However, the same is run by Mahendra Prasad Agarwal under the name and style of Hyderabad Silks and Mahendra Industries. It is stated that upon the assurance given by Mahender Prasad Agarwal, the 1st respondent agreed to take the petition schedule premises and thereafter, he vacated and handed over the same to the 1st respondent in the month of March, 2004 after collecting the good will. Thereafter, the petitioner started textile business in the premises and obtained TATA indicom telephone connection and also paid electricity bills every month till September, 2004. However, it is alleged that on insistence of Mahender Prasad Agarwal, a partner firm was constituted consisting of three partners namely, Ms. Rupali Dilip Mukkawar; Smt. Sumitra Bai and the petitioner herein under a partnership deed dated 18.9.2004 and based on the partnership deed, the firm is carrying on business of textiles in the premises under the name and style of Sri Sai Syndicate, which is owned by respondent No.1 herein. He further stated that as per the understanding between the partners, the entire capital required for the business shall be borne by respondent No.3 herein and the petitioner and respondent No.2 are entitled to get 10% of the profit in the said business. However, the loss, if any, was agreed to be borne by the petitioner and Miss. Rupali Dilip Mukkawar only. However, subsequently, the President of respondent No.1 association with a mala fide intention in order to make unlawful gains, colluded with respondent No.2 herein and filed a caveat against the petitioner and Rupali Dilip Mukkawar before the Junior Civil Judge as well as Principal Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also filed the present R.C. seeking eviction against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, without making him as party to the said petition. While opposing the application, respondent No.1 filed counter denying the various allegations levelled by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 also adopted the counter filed by respondent No.1. The trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Though the petitioner asserted that he was in possession of the petition schedule premises and also sought to rely on certain documents like Electricity Bills, receipts, bank statement etc., as seen from the record, none of those documents contained the name of the petitioner, in the absence of which, there is no sufficient cause for impleading the petitioner. The trial Court also rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:13th August, 2010 pnb