Heard the learned counsel on either side.

.2. An epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

.The revision petitioner/petitioner filed RCOP No.26 of 1991 so as to evict the defendant Narayani @ Nagammal. This case has a chequered career of its own. An exparte order of eviction was passed on 07.01.1992 and subsequently, it was set aside and the matter is pending ever since 1991. While so, I.A.No.109 of 2004, under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein for getting themselves impleaded as though they are the Muthavallis of the Wakf, which is allegedly having ownership over the petition mentioned property. The lower Court after hearing both the sides, allowed the application. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.

.3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument placing reliance on the grounds of