Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K. K. Arora, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri M. K. Gupta advocate for the caveator-respondents.
(2.) Sri M. K. Gupta submitted that this revision may be decided finally at this stage itself. As agreed between the parties, I proceed to decide this revision finally at this stage itself.
(3.) The respondents 1st set instituted a suit against the respondents IInd set in respect of the property bearing Municipal No. 3N/24 Nehru Nagar, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad for eviction of the defendant-revisionist. The plaintiff-landlords determined the tenancy w.e.f. 2.8.2004 on the basis of a notice sent through registered post and also by U.P.C. on 2.7.2004 and 3.7.2004. The possession over the suit property, which was a shop on the ground floor measuring 22' x 20.6 feet on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,658, was claimed to be unauthorized w.e.f. 3.8.2004. The landlord-respondents claimed that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1988-89 and the first assessment was in the year 1990 and, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No, 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The arrears of rent claimed by the landlords was to the tune of Rs. 91,896. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 33 of 2004. The suit was contested by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit) by filing their separate written statement. The suit proceeded against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who filed their separate written statement. The revisionist on attaining knowledge regarding the aforesaid proceedings, filed an impleadment application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, C.P.C. seeking impleadment in the plaint. It has been brought to my notice that due to inadvertence and typing error, the year of commencement of tenancy was typed as 1995 instead of the year 1992. The rent receipts were also attached with the said application. The statement of account of State Bank of India was also part of the affidavit filed in support of the said application to establish that the revisionist paid rent through an account payee cheque, which was cleared by the Bank from the accounts of the revisionist. The plaintiffs filed their objection to the aforesaid application which was numbered as 78 Ga. The said application has been dismissed by means of the impugned order.;