1. This is a civil revision petition challenging order dated 23.9.2000 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Kota City (South) in Civil Suit No. 419/88 whereby application filed by petitioner (Ankur Sharma) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected.

2. Undisputed facts are that Smt. Darshan Bali (plaintiff respondent No. 1) instituted a civil Suit for eviction of a shop against Dinanath Sharma (father of the present petitioner) (defendant tenant). Dinanath expired on 26.3.87 during the pendency of suit, therefore, he was substituted by his widow Sushila Sharma (respondent No. 2) by impleading her as defendant tenant. On 29.11.99 Ankur Sharma (petitioner) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming that on attaining his age of 18 years it came to his notice that he has not been impleaded as party to the eviction suit of a shop in which his father Dinanath was tenant of landlord Smt. Darshan Bali, whereas only his mother Sushila Devi was substituted by impleading her as defendant to the suit after death of his father as against other legal heirs left behind by his father.

3. In reply to the application the plaintiff respondent No. 1 contended that Ankur Sharma did not come within definition of tenant as would be evident from written statement of his mother Sushila Devi wherein she had alleged that during lifetime of original tenant Dinanath so also after his death, she had not been related in any manner to the tenanted shop and that being so, she got moved an application at the instance of Usha Sharma who had indulged in getting set aside ex-parte proceedings in the eviction suit but she has also not given out any information about Ankur Sharma having any connection to the suit shop of commercial business. The plaintiff has pleaded ignorance as to Ankur Sharma having any relation to the alleged business being carried on in the suit shop. After having heard both the parties, the learned Civil Judge rejected the petitioner's application declining his prayer for being impleaded as defendant No. 2 to the eviction suit. Hence, this revision petition.

4. At the admission stage without issuing any notice to either of the parties to the petition, I have heard Shri Naseem Uddin Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and have perused the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner laying much stress to rely on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramjeevani v. Narati Bai, 1989 (2) RLR 308, besides other decisions rendered in Chimanlal v. Narendra Kumar, 1996 WLC Raj 757 and in Gantusha H. Baddi through L/Rs. v. Meerabai, AIR 2000 SC 1724 : 2000 (4) SCC 586 vociferously contended that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) ought to have impleaded the petitioner as defendant to the suit for eviction and if not, then at least on attaining his majority, in substitution of his father on his death, because he has every right to move for being impleaded as defendant to the suit. However, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law by not exercising its jurisdiction to implead the petitioner as defendant to the eviction suit who is necessary party and it has resulted in causing miscarriage of justice to him, for which interference is called for by setting aside the impugned order.

6. Having considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie I find that only question arises is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to enjoy right of inheritance as heir on the death of his father (original tenant to the demised shop) as contemplated in Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act").

7. To resolve the controversy, I must first of all state the circumstances in which Full Bench of this Court and the apex Court laid down the dictum of law in the cases cited by Mr. Qazi.In Ramjeevani v. Narati, 1989 (2) RLR 308 (supra), before the Full Bench of this Court following questions had arisen for consideration:-

(1) Whet