JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. 1. Shafiq Ahmad has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order passed on 29-11-1985, passed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Case No. 2 of 1983, be quashed. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. Smt. Hamida Bano (opposite party no. 2) initiated proceedings for ejectment of Smt. Shakila (opposite party no. 3) which became the subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid suit no. 2 of 1983. The petitioner made an application in the said proceeding for being impleaded as a plaintiff on the ground that Smt. Hamida Bano has made an oral gift of the suit property to him and, therefore, the petitioner claimed that his name be substituted in place of the original plaintiff. This prayer was rejected by impugned order, hence this writ petition. 2. It is admitted case between the parties that the house in question (14/34-36, Patel Nagar Colony, Raza Bazar, Varanasi) is owned by Smt. Hamida Bano and that the tenancy of Smt. Shakila commenced because of an agreement between those two as a result of which Rs. 260/- per month was paid as rent by Smt. Shakila to Smt. Hamida Bano. The plaint case is that since the disputed house was not covered by the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, a notice u/Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued because Smt. Shakila was in arrears of rent and she had also failed to clear of the electricity dues. It is under these circumstances that the suit was filed. It is further admitted case of the parties that the tenant Smt Shakila has challenged the correctness of the assertion made in the plaint and is defending the suit on various grounds. All those claims and counter-claims will be decided by the courts below on merits wholly uninfluenced by any observations about it in this judgment. It is interesting to mention here that Smt. Shakila has not appeared either herself or through an advocate in this writ petition. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has taken permission from the ceiling authorities whereafter Hamida Bano made oral gift, the petitioner should be impleaded as a plaintiff. It is interesting to mention here that Smt. Shakila has not appeared either herself or through an advocate in this writ petition. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has taken permission from the ceiling authorities whereafter Hamida Bano made oral gift, the petitioner should be impleaded as a plaintiff. He has further contended that since steps were taken for getting the petitioner's name mutated against the disputed property, the petitioner is entitled to become a plaintiff and sue the tenant. The learned counsel for Smt. Hamida Bano on the other hand has argued that no such permission from ceiling authorities was ever sought by the petitioner. The said proceedings were all false, forged and fictitious and that she has no knowledge of it. It has further been stated that some forgery has been attempted in the Municipal records which has been resisted by Smt. Hamida Bano who continues as the owner of the property. 3. It is apparent that though Smt. Shakila, as tenant, has attorned Smt. Hamida Bano, as landlady, it has been argued that the petitioner appears to be in league with Smt. Shakila the tenant and has been set up by her to fasten a false plea since at no point of time any oral gift was made by Smt. Hamida Bano in favour of the petitioner. On these facts it has been argued that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this writ petition has no force and must be dismissed. On the facts and circumstances narrated above it is apparent that there is no title dispute concerning the property in suit. It is a simple ejectment proceeding by a landlord against a tenant. Smt. Shakila has admittedly paid rent to Smt. Hamida Bano. The suit has been filed on the ground that the tenant is a defaulter whose tenancy has been terminated by the landlord through a notice u/Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the suit has to be decided on the interse relationship and conduct of the landlord and the tenant. The controversy as to whether there was or not any oral gift by the landlady Smt. Hamida Bano in favour of the petitioner will be absolutely foreign to the issues involved. Therefore, the suit has to be decided on the interse relationship and conduct of the landlord and the tenant. The controversy as to whether there was or not any oral gift by the landlady Smt. Hamida Bano in favour of the petitioner will be absolutely foreign to the issues involved. Again, in view of the respective averments made by the petitioner and Smt. Hamida Bano it is more than apparent that while the petitioner claims through an oral gift, the said Hamida Bano refutes loudly the said allegation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that neither it will be in the interest of justice nor desirable for safeguarding the interest of parties to direct the impleadment of the petitioner as a plaintiff in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case reported in AIR 1987 Bombay at page 276. The facts of the said case were entirely different in as much as therein matter of title were to be gone into. Therefore, the authority does not help the petitioner in any way. No other ruling was cited and no other point has been argued. The order passed by the trial court is neither illegal nor suffers from any factual error and is upheld. 5. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim order passed by this Court on 2-7-86 if hereby vacated. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously. Petition dismissed.