“It may be mentioned here that the suit was for eviction of a tenant. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that in fact, the defendants-tenants have not disputed the title of the plaintiffs in the suit. At any rate, in a suit for eviction filed by the owner against his tenant, the question that would rise for consideration would be whether the defendant is a tenant or not and whether the tenancy was properly terminated an whether he is liable to be evicted or not. The question of examining petitioner’s title based on agreement of sale would scarcely arise in such a suit. If the petitioner has some rights based on agreement of sale in his favour, it is open to him to vindicate his rights by way of a separate suit. His presence in the suit would in no way assist the Curt in determining the questions involved in the suit. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner, on the facts of the case, can be considered either s a necessary or even a proper party to the suit. In fact, it is brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently the petitioner herein has already filed a separate suit for specific performance in O.S.No.273 of 1998 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.”
