THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3531 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.168 of 2008 in the Court of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for eviction from the suit schedule properties. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1183 of 2008 with a prayer to add respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein as defendant Nos.2 and 3. She pleaded that the premises were arranged for her, by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it was their obligation to pay the rents throughout. She contends that in view of the allegations made by respondent No.1 that the rents for the premises are not being paid for the past ten years, it becomes necessary to implead respondent Nos.2 and 3. The application was opposed by respondent No.1. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 31.05.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. The suit filed by respondent No.1 was for eviction of a tenant. The only aspect that becomes relevant in a suit of that nature is a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the proof of ingredients thereof. The plea of recovery of rents virtually becomes secondary. Further, the adjudication of the suit of such nature does not involve any third parties. In case the petitioner is of the view that the rents were being paid or ought to have been paid by the proposed respondents, she can adduce evidence either by summoning them as witnesses or by taking other steps. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are neither proper nor necessary parties for adjudication of the suit. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.08.2010 kdl