Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohit Agarwal for the plaintiff respondent no. 1. Notice need not be issued to the defendant respondent no. 2 in view of the order being passed herein.
(2.) This revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 12, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 60 of 2009 (M/s. Heera Lal & Sons v. M/s. Satendra Transport Company) . According to Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for the revisionists the revisionists application paper no. 81-ga has been rejected by the impugned order wherein the revisionist claimed to be impleaded in the said suit.
(3.) According to him the revisionist is the owner of the premises in question which is not denied. The revisionists being owner of the premises in question had it let it out to the plaintiff respondent M/s Heera Lal & Sons. He states that M/s Heera Lal & Sons allege to have made certain constructions and have sub-let the premises to respondent no. 2 M/s Satendra Transport Company herein. According to him the revisionists had filed a suit for eviction of the plaintiff respondent no. 1 herein on various grounds which is still pending. The submission is that since the revisionists are owners of the property in question they were necessary parties in the suit filed by their tenant M/s Heera and Sons against M/s Satendra Transport Company who is the tenant of M/s Heera and Sons.;