MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pritish Kumar learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Madhurkant Srivastava learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and also perused the record.
(2.) The short question involved in this revision is as to whether in a suit filed by the landlord against his tenant for eviction, a third party claiming himself to be the owner, can seek his or her impleadment as a party in the suit.
(3.) The opposite party No. 1 alleging himself to be the owner and landlord of the premises in question on the basis of registered sale deed, filed a suit for eviction against the opposite parties No. 2 and 3, which is pending. The revisionist who was admittedly wife of the opposite party No. 1, sought her impleadment in the SCC Suit on the ground that she is the owner and landlady of the premises in question and the sale deed on the basis of which the opposite party No. 1 is claiming himself to be the owner, has been obtained by fraud. It is also not disputed that the revisionist has filed a suit for permanent injunction against her husband opposite party No. 1 and one Smt. Batul for the relief of permanent injunction in which the opposite party No. 1 has been restrained from evicting the revisionist from the premises in question.;