S.K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 18 of 2004 whereby the preliminary issues raised by the applicant have been decided against the revisionist.
(2.) PLAINTIFF -opposite party (in short 'landlord') filed Suit No. 18 of 2004 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the following defendants namely firm M/s. Shyam lal Raghuvansh Kumar through Anil Kumar son of Late Manohar Lal, Kusumlata, wife of Manohar Lal, Anil Kumar son of Manohar lal and Suresh Chand son of Late Banarasi Das. It was alleged in the plaint that the rent receipts were issued in the name of the firm M/s. Shyam lal Raghuvansh Kumar of which the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Kusumlata and Anil Kumar were the partners. It was further stated in Paragraph 9 of the plaint that Smt. Kusumlata and Anil Kumar partners of the firm have let out the said shop to Suresh (defendant No. 2 in Suit No. 18 of 2004). The revisionist-opposite party filed a written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint, it was further denied that the firm was never a tenant, in fact Manohar Lal, father of Anil Kumar was the tenant and after his death his legal heirs became the tenant and they are in actual occu­pation of the business. It was further alleged that the suit is bad on account of non-impleadment of all the legal heirs of late Manohar Lal, as the tenancy devolved upon all the legal heirs and further no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short 'the Act") was served upon all the legal heirs of late Manohar Lal. That on the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed two preliminary issues viz. 1. Whether the suit bad for mis-joinder of parties? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?
(3.) THE Trial Court decided the issued against the revisionist, hence the present revision.;