RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. NARSING PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 25.4.2003, passed in RA No.353 of 2002 by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Chief Judge allowed the appeal and setting aside the order dated 22.10.2002 made in IA No.263 of 2002 in RC No.112 of 1998 by the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, to implead the petitioner herein as Respondent No.2 in the RC.

(2.) Few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this revision, briefly stated, are that the first respondent herein - landlord filed the R.C. for eviction of the tenant - 2nd respondent herein. During the pendency of the rent control case, the petitioner herein filed IA No.263 of 2002 to implead him as a party respondent contending that the first respondent herein is his own elder brother and premises belongs to him, his father and his brother and, as such, each of them are entitled to l/3rd undivided share. It is also his case that during the lifetime of his father, he used to collect rents of the suit schedule premises. While so, the first respondent herein filed OS No.646 of 1991 before the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the implead petitioner and his father for partition and the subject-matter of the said suit is also the subject-matter of the R.C. It is also his case, that the father of the implead petitioner, during his lifetime, executed a Will bequeathing his l/3rd share in favour of the implead petitioner and, thus, after the death of his father, 2/3rd of the property should devolve on him exclusive of l/3rd share in favour of the 1st respondent. It is his further case that during trial of the suit, he came to know about the filing of the eviction petition by the first respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent, to deprive him of his rights over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that as the implead petitioner is the owner of 2/3 rd of the property, and the 2nd respondent herein is a tenant, suppressing these facts, rent control case was filed and, therefore, prayed to implead him as the second respondent in the R.C.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Rent Controller allowed the implead petition, impleading him as 2 in the R.C. on the ground that Ex.P1 reveals that the Respondent No.1 herein filed suit for partition and separate possession against his father and brothers including the implead petitioner - third party - petitioner herein. Ex.Pl further reveals that Item No.2 of the petition schedule property i.e. mulgi Bearing No. 15-9-69 situated at Siddiambar Bazar, Hyderabad, is included in the suit schedule and he prayed the Court to pass preliminary decree declaring that the petitioner is entitled 1/3rd share and separate possession of the same, whereas, the implead petitioner claims 2/3rd share of the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will executed by the father. Both the implead petitioner and Respondent No.l are claiming the property under separate Wills executed by their father.