(1.) The applicant revisionist had moved an application for adding himself as party plaintiff in the suit claiming that he is the landlord of the property which has since been disputed by the plaintiff who had filed the suit for eviction of the defendant in the learned Small Causes Court. This application for impleadment was rejected by the order impugned in this revisional application.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tej Pratap Singh contends that since the petitioner is the landlord, therefore, he is not only a necessry party but also a proper parly. The suit cannot proceed without him. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Singh at length.