ORDER

This petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / first defendant against the order, dated 05.03.2020, passed by the Court below in I.A.No.98/2017 in O.S.No.62/2011 dismissing the petition filed for impleading the tenant in the suit.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.62 of 2011 for partition against their brothers and sisters viz., revision petitioner/1st defendant and the respondents 3 to 8/defendants 2 to 7. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner/1st defendant filed an application in I.A.No.98 of 2017 seeking to implead the 9th respondent herein, who is a tenant under the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs in 'B' schedule property. The Court below dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/first defendant submitted that the plaintiffs claimed partition of suit schedule properties and they filed an injunction application along with the suit in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties in I.A.No.71/2011. Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed a petition to reject the plaint which was dismissed, against which, he filed CRP(MD)No.2575/2015 before this Court, wherein, interim stay was granted. Taking advantage of the same, the respondents 1 & 2 / plaintiffs started putting up construction in 'B' schedule property from May 2016 and therefore, the petitioner filed an injunction application not to put up construction, but the construction was completed by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents 1 & 2 / plaintiffs rented out illegally constructed building to the 9th respondent/proposed party during July, 2016 on receipt of Rs.7 lakhs as advance and for a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. The proposed party, who was inducted as tenant in the illegally constructed building, has every possibility to claim right to be in possession in the joint family property which is the subject matter of partition suit and when such substantial right is sought to be created in favour of the third party/proposed party, the right of other sharers in the joint family property will be put into prejudice.

Therefore, the petitioner filed the present impleading petition to implead the proposed party as 8th defendant in the suit. The Court below holding that no relief is claimed in the suit against the proposed party and he is in no way connected with the suit property, dismissed the impleading petition by the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, against which, this revision petition is filed. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner / 1st defendant would further submit that the trial Court failed to note that creating a leasehold right by putting up a new construction in 'B' schedule property during the pendency of the suit, is a substantial alteration of status quo and therefore, the lessee is a necessary and proper party for final and complete adjudication of the suit. He would further state that the proposed party did not contest or oppose the impleading petition and therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the impleading petition. Further, the trial Court, without considering the above aspects, has erroneously dismissed the impleading petition, relying on the judgment reported in 2017 (4) LW 345. It is further submitted that the suit properties are undivided and both the parties are liable to render accounts in respect of their dealings, so, the lease created pending suit has to be taken into consideration while passing the decree, for which, impleadment of the proposed party is necessary. Moreover, the validity or invalidity of the lease created in favour of the proposed party will have consequences during the outcome of the suit and for giving objections, the proposed party has to be necessarily impleaded. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the impugned order.

5.The learned counsel for the respond