notify respondent No.2 through RPAD, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC, which was allowed and respondent No.2 was ordered to be served through affixture. This is evident from the order sheet dated 20.06.2022. The respondent No.2, who until then had not been notified of the case in S.C.No.420/2022, opposed the affixture of the notice and thereafter, he entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant and that he was in arrears of rent. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed an application to be impleaded as a defendant in S.C.No.420/2022. It was claimed by the petitioner that he was in possession of the suit schedule premises in his own right as a co-owner of the property and therefore, respondent No.1 could not prosecute any proceeding against respondent No.2. The petitioner also contended that respondent No.2 was not in possession but he was set up by respondent No.1. He further contended that respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.26353/2019 before the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH - 74) for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property and that the Civil Trial Court after
