ORDER :

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 23.08.2021, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.901 of 2019 in O.S.No.626 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC read with Section 151 CPC to implead the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and permit to carry out the proposed consequential amendment.

2. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/third party and Ms. Vinodini Rooth, learned counsel representing Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defendant.

3. The revision petitioner has filed petition in I.A.No.901 of 2019. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the defendant. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter, the revision petitioner is referred as ‘third party’ and the respondents 1 & 2 are referred as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’ respectively.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises of first floor of house property and for costs. The defendant filed the written statement averring that while she was looking for a rented house, on 27.07.2015, she met Mr. Krishna who represented that one Sudhakar is his uncle’s son who is living abroad and entrusted him (Mr. Krishna) to look after the plaint schedule house, and further that Mr. Krishna along with his family members including Smt. Singotamma were staying in the ground floor of the building in the plaint schedule property and offered the first floor of the suit schedule house property on a monthly rent of Rs.6,500/-, with an advance amount of two months’ rent, and accordingly, on 01.08.2015, the defendant took the 1st floor of the schedule house on rent for a period of three years under an oral tenancy and the tenancy is renewable for further periods. The defendant is regularly paying monthly rents and the charges of electricity consumption. It is further averred that the rent for the property was paid on 05.01.2016 for the month of December, 2015 and Mr. Krishna has acknowledged the receipt of the advance amount and the rents by issuing receipts to the defendant. It is further averred that in the last week of January, 2016, Mr. Krishna, who lives in the ground floor portion told the defendant that he is also relative of Sudhakar and that on 03.01.2016, Krishna along with his family members, namely, Pedda Singotam, Nadipi Singotam and Chinna Singotam brought some unknown middle aged person to the defendant’s portion and introduced him as Mr. Bala Naidu and that he was permitted to use the up-stair portion also and further that the defendant should not pay rents to Mr. Krishna and thereafter for several days, the plaintiff frequently trespassed into upstairs portion and used to drink alcohol, dine and create nuisance and abusing the defendant and her daughter in filthy language and terrorizing them, disconnecting water supply to her portion etc. Therefore, the defendant objected the unnecessary interference and asked him to confine himself to ground floor only. Though the defendant informed the same to the plaintiff about Mr. Krishna and others’ interference, he did not take it seriously, and thereby, having left with no other option, the defendant got issued legal notice, dated 03.02.2016, to Mr. Krishna, but no reply was received. As such, the defendant filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.124 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. She further categorically stated that the defendant is ready to pay rent on condition that the plaintiff has to pay the loss incurred by the defendant due to the act of the defendant (sic., plaintiff) and his deployed persons.

5. Later, the third party filed I.A.No.901 of 2019 to add her as the 2nd plaintiff stating that she purchased the house property from the plaintiff under a registered sale deed bearing documen