The court clarified that questions of title and ownership are not decided in the proceedings before the SCC Court, and the petitioner's rights based on the sale-deed are pending adjudication in the appeal or can be agitated before the Civil Court.

Rajan Roy, J.

Supplementary affidavit by the petitioner as also short counter affidavit by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have been filed, which are taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the application of the petitioner herein under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment in the proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1972') pending before the SCC Court.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Premlata Bhargava was the landlady of the tenanted premises in question and Y.N. Srivastava, predecessor of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, was the tenant. A suit for eviction was filed by the landlady against Y.N. Srivastava wherein a compromise was arrived at and it was agreed that an agreement-to-sale would be executed in favour of Y.N. Srivastava. The sale-consideration and other conditions were also agreed upon. In pursuance to it an agreement-to-sale was executed on 19.4.1984. The important point to be noted is that the said agreement-to-sale mentioned that possession of the premises was being handed over to Sri J.N. Srivastava and that the land-lady i.e. the vendor would not realize the rent of the premises in question. The agreement-tosale also mentioned that the vendee would have a right to transfer the property, however, for reasons which are disputed the sale-deed could not ultimately be executed, instead the landlady executed the sale-deed of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner herein on 28.2.1994, but it is not in dispute that the petitioner has never been in possession nor has he let out the premises to anybody.

5. It is not in dispute that it was the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties and after his demise the opposite parties who are in possession of the premises in question allegedly as landlord and have inducted tenants in four new shops constructed by Sri J.N. Srivastava as stated by Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Various proceedings have taken place for eviction etc. between the opposite parties and their alleged tenants wherein according to Sri Saxena, Advocate his clients have been found to be the land-lords of the premises in question. An order declaring vacancy of the premises has also been set aside according to him and the matter has attained finality upto the High Court.

6. On the other hand Sri T.N. Gupta and Sri K.C. Bhasin, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner submits that mere agreement-to-sale does not confer any title nor any right to let out the premises in question. He also states that against the decree for specific performance passed in favour of the opposite parties based on the agreement-to-sale an appeal has been filed which is still pending. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner herein is that they would be prejudiced in the event they are not impleaded in the proceedings in question and it would have an affect on their rights of title, ownership and possession of the premises in question.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records the Court finds that the dispute which is pending before the Courts below is between the alleged lessor and lessee and it relates to a tenancy premises.

8. It is admitted that the opposite parties are in possession of the premises based on an agreement-to-sale in respect of which a decree for specific performance has also been passed by the Civil Court which has been challenged in appeal.

9. It is also not in dispute that it is the opposite parties and their predecessors-in-interest who had let out the premises in question including the letting out to Gautam Sharma, who is a joint tenant with opposite party No. 5. The opposite party No. 6 is brother of opposite party No. 5 and is joint-tenant of the premises. The r