V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) JSCC suit No. 43 of 2000 was filed against Malik Jamil Ahmad Advocate for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. Defendant-re­spondent No. 1 filed written statement, denying landlord-tenant relationship. Shakil Ahmad moved an application for impleadment on 7.2.2005. To the said application objections were filed. Judge Small Cause Court rejected the said application for impleadment on 13.12.2006. Against the said order Shakil Ahmad filed Revision No. 162 of 2007, and the said Revision has been allowed. Against the order allowing revision, present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed contending therein that suit in ques­tion has been filed in collusion and further it has been sought to be contended that contesting respondent and Smt. Aisa Bibi were original owner of the premises in question and on the basis of gift deed executed by Smt. Aisa Bibi, he is owner. Details have been given of suit No. 154 of 2005 seeking declaration in respect of said premises. In this background, it has been stated that rightful view has been taken. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the aver­ments made in the counter affidavit. In the present case, undisputed position is that JSCC suit No. 43 of 2000 had been filed against defendant-respondent No. 1 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. In the said suit, defendant-respondent No. 1 filed written statement, denying landlord-tenant relationship. The case in hand has to be decided on the basis of the facts disclosed in the plaint. Merely because Shakil Ahmad claims that he is owner of the property and he has filed suit for decla­ration of his rights, then ipso facto, it is not necessary to implead him as party in JSCC suit, which has to be decided on its own merit. Revisional Court has clearly erred in law in directing impleadment of Shakil Ahmad in JSCC suit. JSCC suit has to be decided on its own merit as to whether there existed any landlord-tenant relationship inter se parties. In case petitioner fails to sub­stantiate the said fact that he is not landlord, his suit would fail. Revision has been wrongly allowed.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order, allow­ing revision and directing impleadment of Shakil Ahmad is quashed and set aside. Petition Allowed.;