- (1.) Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for plaintiff respondent no.1 who stated that as pure legal question was involved hence revision might finally be decided.
(2.) This revision is directed against order dated 29.1.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/J.S.C.C. Ghaziabad in O.S. no.11 of 1996, Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta Vs. Modi Sugar Mills and on other. Through the impugned order application of the applicant to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit on the ground that B.I.F.R. had transferred the property in dispute to it has been rejected. The suit has been filed by plaintiff respondent no.1, Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta against respondent nos.2 and 3 Modi Sugar Mills and Modi spinning and weaving mills for their eviction . In has been stated in the plaint that defendant no.1 was granted lease of the property in dispute admeasuring 21 bigha 12 biswa for 99 years through lease deed dated 1.10.1945 and that defendant no.1 had sub let the property in dispute to defendant no.2. The court below held that applicant was sub tenant and in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant, sub tenant was not necessary party. It was also held that application was filed very late.
(3.) In the plaint it was alleged that lease was granted in the year 1945 to defendant no.1 who had sub let the same to defendant no.2.;