Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113019 Court No. - 2 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6054 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Jaspreet Kaur Respondent :- M/S Vardhman Estate And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Astha Misra,Avneesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner by means of present petition has assailed the impugned order dated 29.03.2025 passed by District Judge, Meerut in SCC Revision No.30 of 2025 as well as impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by Judge Small Causes, Meerut in SCC Suit No.35 of 2008. 3. The respondent no.1 instituted SCC Revision No.30 of 2025 for eviction of petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the suit property was sold to respondent no.2-M/s Nishyam Hotels Private Limited. After the purchase of the suit property by respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 filed an application for impleadment/transposing him as plaintiff no.2. 4. Against the said application, the petitioner filed objection stating that the application of the respondent no.2 is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent no.2 is not the landlord and the suit for eviction can be maintained only by the landlord who is respondent no.1. 5. The application for impleadment by respondent no.2 was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 04.01.2025. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred SCC Revision No.30 of 2025 which was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 29.03.2025.. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Sub-ordinate Court committed manifest error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner inasmuch as the respondent no.2 is not the landlord and that he has no interest in the suit as such he cannot be transposed as plaintiff no.2 in the suit. It is further contended that Revisional Court without considering the record of the trial court dismissed the Revision. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the respondent no.2 has proved by filing sale deed along with impleadment application that he has stepped into the shoes of plaintiff no.1 and he is a landlord, and in case the petitioner is disputing the locus of respondent no.2 to be impleaded as plaintiff no.2, it is always open to him to get an issue framed in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and respondent no.2. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 is a necessary party and Sub-ordinate Court has not erred in law in directing for impleadment of respondent no.2 as plaintiff no.2. 8. Be that as it may, the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 has filed an impleadment application stating that he has purchased the suit property during the pendency of suit and therefore he has stepped into the shoes of the landlord and his impleadment as plaintiff no.2 in the suit is necessary for the proper and effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. The respondent no.2 has interest in the suit property as he has purchased the suit property by executing two sale deeds. The petitioner is challenging the impleadment of respondent no.2 on the ground that he has not acquired the right of landlord by virtue of sale deed and therefore, he is not a landlord. While deciding the suit for eviction, the trial Court shall frame an issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent no.2 and the petitioner by filing necessary evidence on record can establish that the respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2 is not the landlord, therefore, the suit for eviction is not maintainable. 9. In such view of the fact, this Court finds that the Sub-ordinate Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise since the petitioner has opportunity to take the objection about the locus of the respondent no.2 during the hearing of the suit, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by impleadment of respondent no.2 as plaintiff no.2. In such view of the fact, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad