1. This is an application under Order 1 Rule X read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) for impleading the applicant as a Respondent in the instant writ petition.

2. In order to decide the application, it would be appropriate to extract the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC hereunder:-

“10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.-

(1) ..............

(2) Court may strike out or add parties -- The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

(3) ..............

(4) ..............

(5) ..............”

3. The law with regard to impleadment of the parties is quite liberal in the sense that a party can be added at any stage of the proceedings. The only embargo is that the presence of the party who is sought to be impleaded must be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the lis. It is also well settled that the Petitioner is the dominus litus. Thus, unless a person who moves an application for impleadment satisfies the Court that he has a direct interest in the lis, he/she cannot be impleaded as a party.

4. Before adverting to the grounds on which the impleadment is sought by the applicant, it would be fruitful to recapitulate a few facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition.

5. A Perpetual Sub-Lease Deed in respect of property No. A-3/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was registered in favour of Late Ram Kanwar Jain on 24.04.1971. Thereafter, the said Shri Ram Kanwar Jain expired. On the death of Late Shri Ram Kanwar Jain, the property was mutated on 21.04.1998 in favour of his widow Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain. According to the averments made in the writ petition, Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain appointed one Late Shri Dharam Chand Jain as her attorney. It is the case of the Petitioners that sometime in the year 1995, Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain applied to the DDA for conversion of the property in question from leasehold to freehold. It is further the case of the Petitioners that Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain acting through her attorney Late Shri Dharam Chand Jain entered into agreement to sell dated 05.07.1995 and agreed to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 70 lacs to the Petitioners. An amount of Rs. 18 lacs was paid in advance and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the Sale Deed after conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold. Shri Dharam Chand Jain, attorney of Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain also expired on 09.12.1995. In the year 1996, Petitioner No. 2 (Ms. Glory Promoters (P) Ltd.) filed a suit for specific performance of the earlier said agreement against Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain being C.S. (OS) No. 1329/1996.

6. In the meanwhile, the applicant herein (Mr. P.C. Srivastava) who is a tenant in the property, on or about 27.11.1989 made certain complaints to Respondent No. 1 (claimed to be false by the Petitioners) alleging that Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain had sold the demised property to Late Shri Dharam Chand Jain. The property was inspected by Respondent No. 1. According to the Petitioner, the lease in favour of Late Smt. Bimla Devi Jain was thereby determined on account of the alleged false and frivolous complaints made by the applicant herein.

7. It is further the case of the Petitioners that after verifying all aspects on 02.04.1992, the DDA allowed restoration of the lease on 01.05.1992, subject to the deposit of restoration charges. Thereafter, in the year 1995, Late