Co-heirs of deceased tenant entitled to implead in suit claiming tenancy rights under common ancestor.

O R D E R

Heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, for the petitioner. The 7th defendant is the Civil Revision Petitioner.

2. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows:

O.S.No.179 of 2021 was originally numbered as O.S.No.342 of

2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Srivilliputhur. After the creation of a Munsif Court at Rajapalayam, the said suit was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.179 of 2021.

3. The said suit is one for permanent injunction. The claim of the plaintiff is that his father, one P.S.Balakrishna Raja had taken a vacant land on lease from one, S.K.Alagu Raja. The lease is said to have been entered sometime in the year 1962. The lease is said to be oral.

4. Balakrishna Raja, after he had taken possession of vacant land, had put up a superstructure and was running a Saw-Mill therein. Subsequently, on account of change of business, the superstructure put up by Balakrishna Raja was being used for plating business.

5. The plaintiff urged that the lessor Alagu Raja passed away, leaving behind defendants 1 to 6 as his legal heirs. These defendants had alienated the property in favor of the 7^th defendant-the Civil Revision Petitioner.

6. The plaintiff further urged that, Balakrishna Raja filed a petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act of 1921, for a direction to Alagu Raja to sell the vacant land. This application in R.C.No.1 of 1979, seems to have been originally allowed. A revision preferred to this Court came to be allowed, holding that an application under Section 9 cannot be filed independently and can be initiated only when ejectment proceedings are initiated by the lessor.

7. The plaintiff pleaded that, in order to show him as a defaulter, the legal heirs of Alagu Raja refused to receive rents from him. Balakrishna Raja/plaintiff's father passed away on 25.03.2000. Thereafter, the plaintiff claimed that he has been in possession and occupation of the property as his legal heir.

8. The cause of action for the present suit is that, on

18.09.2013, at about 10.00 a.m, the 3^rd defendant attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff urged that he cannot be dispossessed from the property except under due process of law. As the attempt of the defendants was illegal, he came forthwith the suit.

9. Summons were served on the defendants. The 7^th defendant has also filed a detailed written statement, even when the suit was pending before the Munsif Court at Srivilliputhur.

10. Subsequent to the transfer to Rajapalayam, the 1^st respondent herein filed an application to implead himself as a party to the suit. The claim of the 1^st respondent herein, namely, Mr.Saravanakrishnan, is that his father, viz., P.B.Murugesan is a son of P.S.Balakrishna Raja and since P.S.Balakrishna Raja is no more and so also his father, he wanted to come on record as the 8^th defendant. This application was received by the learned District Munsif in I.A.No.1 of 2023. After the receipt of a counter from the defendants, he allowed the application on 23.02.2026. Challenging the same, the 7^th defendant is before this Court.

11. It is the plea of Mr.Thirunavukkarasu that the proposed party has not filed any documents to show that he is in possession of the property or is carrying on electroplating business on his own. He further urges that the plaintiff being the dominus litis, it is for him to array the parties and since he has not arrayed the 1^st respondent as a party to the suit, the 1^st respondent is not entitled to come on record.

Hence, he pleads that the order requires to be revised.

12. I have carefully considered the facts. I ha