ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.
(2.) Since both the aforementioned revisions involving a similar question were heard together, therefore, the same are decided by a common order.
(3.) These two revisions filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against separate orders of the same date i.e. 27.4.2016 rejecting the application moved by the revisionist under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in SCC Suits question the legality of the impugned orders passed by the court below. The rejection of applications filed by the revisionist proceeds on the finding that the revisionist though being a legally wedded wife of the transferor who has transferred the disputed property in favour of opposite party no. 1 (plaintiff), is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit which has been filed on the basis of landlord-tenant relationship between the opposite party no. 1-landlord (plaintiff) and opposite party no. 2-tenant (defendant), hence the application is non-maintainable.;