M.R. Verma, J.:- This revision petition, purporting to be one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as "the Code") has been directed against the order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nalagarh, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts are that respondent No.l (hereafter referred to as R-1) has filed an application for eviction of respondent No.2 (hereafter referred to as "R-2") under Section 14(2)(ii)(a)(v) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") on the grounds that R-2 who was inducted as a tenant on 22.11.1986 in respect of the shop on KhasraNo.1070, Khewant/Khatauni Nos. 182/232 min, measuring 29.40 Square Meters, situate in Up Mohal, Naya Nalagarh, on payment of rent, has ceased to occupy the said premises for the last more than two years continuously and more particularly since 1.1.1997 till 31.12.1998. R-2, in his reply, has admitted the non occupation of the shop in question as alleged in the application, and it has been averred that he is an old man and is living in Pinjore. It has further been averred that his sons are having their business in Nalagarh and Baddi where they are running karyana shops and that he has not sublet the demised premises to anyone including his sons and if anybody has occupied the shop, he may be an encroacher and possession may be unauthorised and illegal. The evidence and final arguments in the rent petition had already been concluded but when it was fixed for orders, the petitioner’s moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code before the Rent Controller praying that they be added as parties - respondents in the petition on the ground that they possess right and title in the premises in dispute, as joint family business of Karyana was being carried out in the demised premises and they are members of the said Hindu undivided joint family and are, therefore, necessary parties in order to decide the controversy in the petition. The application was resisted by R-l on the ground that the petitioners have got no right, title and interest in the demised premises and are, therefore our necessary parties for any relief has been claimed against them. The learned Rent Controller dismissed application of the petitioners by the impugned order. Hence the present petition.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.

4. Be it stated at the very outset that the impugned order has been passed in the proceedings under the Rent Act and not by a civil Court; therefore, a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code is apparently not maintainable. Therefore, the present petition could have been disposed of only on this short ground. It was, however, submitted by the learned counselor the petitioners that the impugned order has been singed by the concerned officer as sub Judge which fact misled the learned counsel to mention the revision petition to be one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Otherwise, a revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable under Section 24(5) of the Act, therefore, this Court under its inherent powers may treat the present revision petition as one having been filed under the said provisions and the wrong mentioning of the provision in the heading of the petition may be ignored. In view of these submissions, in the interest of justice, this petition is treated as a revision under Section 24(5) of the Act whereunder it is maintainable.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the sons of R-2 and are carrying on business in the demised premises, pursuant to the partnership deed dated 15.11.1986 entered into between the petitioners and R-2. Therefore, they have interest in the premises and deserve to be added as party respondents in