IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3572 OF 2011 Between : A.Satyanarayana and another ... PETITIONERS A N D Smt A.Padmavathi and others. … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3572 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 04.07.2011 in I.A.No.2363 of 2008 in O.S.No.44 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking to implead respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein as defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit was dismissed on the ground that respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are receiving the rents from respondent Nos.6 and 7 and they have already initiated proceedings before the Rent Controller. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court reported in Moola Anusha and others V. Moola Vijaya Bhaskar and others [1], wherein it is held thus: “No doubt true that no relief of partition claimed against defendants 6 to 32 However, their presence is necessary in the context of depositing rents, distribution of same among the sharers and ultimately for allotment of tenancies in the event of passing preliminary decree.” The above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. 3. Under Order I Rule 10 CPC a party can be impleaded when he has got some semblance of right over the suit schedule property. The power to add a party may be exercised on either of the two grounds (i) such person ought to have been joined, either as plaintiff or as a defendant, but he is not so joined or (ii) without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. 4. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein against the petitioners herein for declaration of Gift Settlement Deed, dated 27.07.2006 as null and void and for injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating/transferring or creating charge over the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, respondent Nos.6 and 7/proposed parties are tenants. Presence of proposed parties is not at all necessary for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. The proposed parties are admittedly tenants in a portion of the suit schedule property. One of the proposed parties already invoked Section 9(3) of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court. The other proposed party can also resort to follow the same with regard to payment of rents. After determining the rights of parties in the suit, the parties can approach the Rent Controller for withdrawal of rents in terms of the decree that may be passed by the Civil Court. The rights and interests of proposed parties would not in any manner be effected in the suit even if they are not brought on record. It is needless to observe that allotment of tenancies of the proposed parties shall be decided by the trial Court in the suit at the time of passing of final decree. This will safeguard the interests of the proposed parties. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the same and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU. J AUGUST 27, 2011. YVL [1] 2010 (5) ALT 231