1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2013 vide which his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking impleadment in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been dismissed. 2. Record shows that the respondent (Manu Bala Gupta) had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRCA. Pramod Goel has been described as respondent No. 2. The ground of eviction were contained in para 18(a); the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for her use. The petition was contested; leave to defend was granted to respondent No. 2 and he had filed his written statement. The parties led their respective evidence. Relevant would it be to state that this petition is of the year 2009 having been filed in January, 2009. It was only after the evidence of the landlord was closed that the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code came to be filed. This was on 31.8.2012. The averments made in this application have been perused. Submission is that the petitioner who is admittedly a joint tenant along with Pramod Goel has found that his interest is not being defended by Pramod Goel; his rights not being safe in the hands of Pramod Goel, he had sought impleadment. 3. In the reply filed by the respondent to the aforenoted application, the averments made in the application had been disputed. It was pointed out that this application is only a delaying tactic. 4. This application had been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. On behalf of the petitioner learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that it is the petitioner who is in exclusive possession of the suit property and although the firm is in the name of Pramod Goel, it is in name only; the exclusivity of the possession of the premises is actually with the petitioner and in case he is not impleaded a valuable right would be lost to him. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported as AIR 1990 SC 203, Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and Anr. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported as AIR 1990 SC 203, Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and Anr. as also another judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as 161 (2009) DLT 511; Krishan Kumar Alag v. Jambu Prasad Jain, to support his submission that a joint tenant in certain circumstances is a relevant and necessary party; a decree passed against a non-contesting party would not be binding on such a party. 6. Arguments have been refuted. Learned Counsel for the respondents points out that this attempt by the petitioner is nothing but a delaying tactic. 7. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed in the year 2009. The original tenant was Puran Chand Goel; after his death the tenancy devolved upon his two sons Pramod Goel and Vinod Gupta. The present petitioner is the son of Vinod Gupta who has since deceased. Arguments made at the bar are contrary to the averments made in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. At length before this Court it has been pointed out that the possession of the suit shop is exclusively with the petitioner whereas the averments in the application are quite contrary; they in fact clearly state that Pramod Goel (uncle of the petitioner) and Vinod Gupta were admittedly in joint possession and were occupying the shop jointly; after the death of Vinod Gupta (father of the petitioner) the petitioner, his mother and sister along with the Pramod Goel continued to remain in joint possession. It is also a matter of record that the eviction petition is being contested by Pramod Goel and at present it is at the stage of final arguments. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that at this stage if the petitioner is permitted to be impleaded it would be setting the entire clock back and the purpose and intent of the petitioner which is only to delay the proceedings would be achieved is a submission which carries sufficient force as there is nothing on record to show that the contesting respondent in the trial Court (Pramod Goel) is in fact not contesting the case effectively. This Court has been informed that the matter was time and again fixed for evidence of the tenant (Pramod Goel) and in spite of opportunity having been granted to him he on one pretext or the other had not been producing his evidence; it was only after a protracted trial that the matter has now become ripe for final arguments. 8. The position at law is well settled. After the death of a tenant his legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants; if one of the legal heirs of the original tenant is not impleaded there is no defect in the petition. The legal heirs have no better right than the original tenant. The legal heir Pramod Gupta has been effectively contesting the litigation. It has now culminated into a stage of final arguments. The prayer under Order 1 Rule 10 may be granted if a party either a necessary or proper party. In fact as noted supra the averments made in the application are totally contrary and opposed to the arguments addressed before this Court. The petitioner is not in exclusive possession; he is in joint possession along with Pramod Gupta who is defending the litigation. In this factual scenario the impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking impleadment suffers from no infirmity. 9. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. In the judgement of Textile Association (supra) the Supreme Court had noted that a fact finding has been returned that the person who had sought impleadment was as much a tenant as the mother and the other brother and it is only in those circumstances that the impleadment had been permitted. The second judgment of Krishan Kumar Alag (supra) only recites the legal proposition that the tenancy rights are inherited by legal heirs as joint tenants. 10. Petition is without any merit. Petition as also the application are dismissed.