CHANDRA KANTA JAIN Vs. HARI CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15 -02 -2005 passed by the judge, Small Cause Court/Addl. District Judge, F.T.C. VII Dehradun (For short the J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No. 27 of 2003, Harichand Gupta Vs. Kamal Kumar Jain and others, whereby learned J.S.C.C. rejected the application, paper no. 85 -C, moved by the revisionist for her impleadment as party to the suit.

(2.) INITIALLY the revisionist has come up before this Court by way of Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but subsequently, the revisionist moved application for treating the same to be Revision under Section 25 of the Provisional Small Cause Courts Act, (for the short the Act) which was allowed vide order dated 10 -3 -2005 passed by this Court. This revision is treated to be under Section 25 of the Act.

(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present revision are that according to the revisionist, plaintiff -respondent no. 1 is the owner and landlord of House No. 3, situate at 3 Adarsh Nagar, Rishikesh, Dehradun wherein respondent no. 2 is a tenant of the entire first floor of the house at a monthly rental of Rs. 1600/ - while the revisionist is a tenant @ Rs. 500/ - per month as rent in one portion consisting of one room Verandah, open Chok, Latrine and bathroom since 1991 and the respondent no. 3 is a tenant @ Rs. 1400/ - p.m. in the rest part of the second floor consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom, latrine, etc., that the landlord Harichand Gupta filed a suit against Kamla Kumar Jain and Raghunath (respondent nos. 2 and 3) for eviction and recovery of rent on the ground of sub -tenancy of the entire first floor and second floor without impleading the revisionist as party to the suit; that on 20 -09 -2004, the respondent no. 2 filed his written statement; that on 31 -01 -2005, the revisionist moved application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for her impleadment as party to the suit and that the learned J.S.C.C. after hearing both the parties rejected the said application, hence the revisionist has come up before this Court. .