Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned dated 09.12.2010.
(2.) IN the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as filed by the Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein) against the Defendant (Respondent No. 2 herein), the Petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as party Defendant on the allegations that the premises in question were taken on rent by her late father and after his demise, she was also in possession of the suit shop as the tenant. The learned Trial Court has referred to the pleadings of the Plaintiff who has asserted the Defendant (Respondent No. 2 herein) to be the tenant in the suit shop and has found no justification to grant the application moved by the Petitioner 1 1/2 years after filing of the suit. It remains trite that the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is to be determined between the parties to the suit i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Petitioner merely with her assertion as one of the legal representatives of the original Defendant cannot be acceded a right to intervene in the suit so filed by the Plaintiff who was asserted only the Defendant to be tenant in the premises.
(3.) THE learned Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the baseless application moved by the Petitioner.;