RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 1.3.2013 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in Vinod Kumar Agarwal v. Narendra Swarnkar SCC Suit No. 6 of 2009 and order dated 23.7.2014 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Ravindra Kumar v. Vinod Kumar Agarwal and another. SCC Revision No. 8/2013

(2.) Vide order dated 1.3.2013, an application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 23.7.2014, revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.3.2013 has been dismissed.

(3.) While rejecting the application and dismissing the revision, it has been observed by the Courts below that Shop No. 609 is divided in three separate shops i.e., 609/1, 609/2 and 609/3. The shop No. 609/1 is in possession of Sri Ravindra Kumar (the petitioner), 609/2 is in the possession of Sri Narendra Kumar and 609/3 is in the possession of the landlord. For both the shops No. 609/1 and 609/2, two separate suits have been filed for their eviction impleading them individually on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the suit filed by the landlord (the respondent No. 1), against the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has filed an impleadment application saying that he is also tenant of the said shop and is necessary party. Before the Courts below, assessment register was produced and on the basis of that, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the Courts below that the shop No. 609 is divided in three parts and there are two separate tenants the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar (the respondent No. 2) and the petitioner is not necessary party.