S KUMAR Vs. SUPER HOTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this revision petition are third-parties, who sought to be impleaded as party-defendants in the suit O.S.5244/1991, on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The facts, necessary for disposal of this revision petition, in brief, are as follows: Petitioners are the owners of the suit schedule property, viz., the building bearing municipal No .5-8-263 and 264 situated at Public Garden Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent is the tenant and the 2nd respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who is the sole defendant in the suit. Petitioners have obtained an order of eviction against the 1st respondent on 27-3-1986 in R.C.404/76 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad and the appeal, R.A.182/86, filed by the 1st respondent against the order in R.C.404/76, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, is pending. The 1st respondent filed the present suit O.S.5244/91, seeking for the relief of declaration that rejecting the licence to run business (hotel) by the defendant (second respondent herein) is illegal and void and directing the defendant (R.2 herein) to grant licence to the suit premises and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the business of the 1st respondent in the suit premises. In this suit (O.S.5244/91), petitioners-herein filed I.A.1094/91 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C, praying the Court to implead them as defendants 2 to 5. That application was dismissed by the lower court on 4-12-1991. Aggrieved by the same, the Present revision petition is filed by the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners contend that though they are not necessary parties, they are proper parties to the suit as, they are the owners of the building and, therefore, they are entitled to be impleaded as party-defendants in the suit. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, however, contends that no relief is asked for against the petitioners and the question of granting licence for running the business is a matter concerning the second respondent-herein and the petitioners have no say in the same. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners-herein need not be impleaded as party-defendants in the suit.

(3.) In view of the above rival contentions, the point that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to be impleaded as party-defendants in the suit?