Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahar in SCC Revision No. 21 of 2011, Gajendra Singh and another v. Sajal Chandra and another, and the order dated 27.9.2011 passed by the SCC judge, Bulandshahar in SCC Suit No. 39 of 2010 whereby an application of the petitioner for impleading him in Suit No. 39 of 2010 was rejected. A suit was filed by the landlord -Respondents No. 1 and 2 against the respondent No. 3, Smt. Vinesh Kumari Singh on the ground of arrears of rent and ejectment. In the plaint, it was pleaded that earlier A.P. Singh, husband of the Respondent No. 3 was the tenant of the premises and after his death in the year 2009, the respondent No. 3 inherited the tenancy. It was further pleaded that after the death of A.P. Singh, the premises in dispute was sub -let by the existing tenant to the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, an impleadment application was filed by the petitioner firm stating that in fact M/s. Singh Traders was the tenant of the disputed premises of which the petitioner and A.P. Singh were the partners, and after the death of A.P. Singh, his wife the respondent No. 3, Smt. Vinesh Kumari Singh became the partner of M/s. Singh Traders, as such, she was the tenant on behalf of the Firm M/s. Singh Traders in the disputed premises, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary party in the matter.
(2.) THE landlord -Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed objections to the impleadment application and pleaded that the firm M/s. Singh Traders was not a necessary and proper party. The rent receipts were being issued in favour of A.P. Singh, husband of the respondent No. 3 and not in favour of the petitioner. After the death of the husband A.P. Singh, she became the tenant of the disputed premises. Thus the petitioner was neither a necessary party nor a proper party. By order dated 27.9.2011 the SCC Judge, Bulandshahar rejected the impleadment application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.9.2011, the petitioner preferred a SCC Revision No. 21 of 2011 which has also been dismissed. Hence the writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) IT has not been disputed by the petitioner that the rent receipts were issued in favour of A.P. Singh, husband of the respondent No. 3, Smt. Vinesh Kumari Singh and not in favour of the petitioner, the privity of contract was between the landlord -Respondents No. 1 and 2 and A.P. Singh and after the death of A.P. Singh Respondent No. 3 being his wife became the tenant. It has also come on record that notice under section 106 Transfer of Property Act was issued by the landlord to the respondent No. 3 terminating the tenancy.;