(1.) These two revision petitions raise identical questions and arise in similar circumstances and as such they are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The petitioner Brij Mohan Lal is alleged to be the previous owner of the properties in dispute, which he is said to have sold in one case to Smt. Lila Bai and in another case to Mohandas, by means of registered sale deeds. The purchasers filed suits for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent against Lak-hunal and Ramjan Khan, who are the tenants in the premises which have been purchased by Lila Bai and Mohandas respectively. In the two suits filed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment by the aforesaid purchasers against the tenants, Brij Mohanlal filed applications under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. for being impleaded as a party defendant. His case is that the sales, said to have been made by him in favour of Smt. Lila Bai and Mohandas, were benami transactions and were made without consideration and were invalid and void for various reasons including fraud and that Brij Mohanlal still continued to be the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and as such he was a necessary party in those suits. The applications filed by Brii Mohanlal were rejected by the trial court in both the suits and it was held that he was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suits for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the plaintiffs against the tenants.
(3.) In these revision petitions, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Brij Mohanlal Bhargava that in order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all disputes between the parties in the two suits, the petitioner was a necessary party in those suits. The submission of the learned counsel is that as the contention of the defendants-tenants in those suits was that they were the tenants of Brij Mohanlat and were paying rent to him, it was at least proper to add Brii Mohanlal as a party defendant in the two suits.