K.K. Sasidharan, J.

The petitioner filed an Application before the learned Rent Controller to implead him as a party to the Rent Control Original Petition, on the ground that he is in possession of the schedule premises.

2. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that the lease was not given to the petitioner, and as such, he is not a necessary party. The Impleading Petition was, therefore, dismissed. The said Order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner produced voluminous documents before the learned Rent Controller to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. In spite of those documents, the learned Rent Controller passed an order, dismissing the Application.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent justified the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel, there is no privity of contract between the landlord and the petitioner, and as such, the learned Rent Controller was incorrect in dismissing the Impleading Petition.

5. The petitioner made a claim that he is doing the business by occupying the schedule premi