ORDER:- These two revision petitions raise identical questions and arise in similar circumstances and as such they are disposed of by a common order.

2. The petitioner Brij Mohan Lal is alleged to be the previous owner of the properties in dispute, which he is said to have sold in one case to Smt. Lila Bai and in another case to Mohandas, by means of registered sale deeds. The purchasers filed suits for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent against Lakhunal and Ramjan Khan, who are the tenants in the premises which have been purchased by Lila Bai and Mohandas respectively. In the two suits filed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment by the aforesaid purchasers against the tenants, Brij Mohanlal filed applications under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C, for being impleaded as a party defendant. His case is that the sales, said to have been made by him in favour of Smt. Lila Bai and Mohandas, were benami transactions and were made without consideration and were invalid and void for various reasons including fraud and that Brij Mohanlal still continued to be the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and as such he was a necessary party in those suits. The a