THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1136 of 2011 ORDER The petitioner-landlord filed R.C.C.No.446 of 2009 in the Court of III Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the second respondent-tenant for eviction of the petition schedule premises. The tenant had vacated the premises on 10.02.2009 and handed over its possession to the petitioner. Thereafter, the owners, namely, Kalawathi Bai and Vinay Singh, let out the said premises to the proposed respondent, the son of the tenant, on 05.03.2009 on a monthly rent of Rs.2500 /-. When the Court Bailiff came to the suit premises with the summons standing in the name of his father – second respondent, proposed respondent received and handed over the same to the said owner. Hence, the proposed respondent filed I.A.No.68 of 2010 seeking to implead him as respondent No.2 in the main case and to direct the petitioner to carry out consequential amendment in the eviction petition. Through order dated 19.01.2011, the Court below allowed the said I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the proposed respondent. 3. It is not in dispute that the proposed respondent is in possession of the petition schedule premises as a tenant and he received the summons in the RCC filed by the petitioner against his father. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent had vacated the suit premises and he did not contest the matter. It is to be seen that the proposed respondent filed I.A. for impleadment in RCC on the ground that there is every likelihood of passing the order of eviction by the Rent Controller, which would certainly affect his right as a tenant in respect of the property in question. As the father of the proposed respondent remained ex parte in RCC and the proposed respondent is in possession of the suit schedule premises, I am of the view that the Court below rightly allowed the I.A. since impleadment of the proposed respondent does not vitiate the suit proceedings. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:05.08.2011 sj