JUDGMENT 1. - These two revision petitions arise out of similar facts and law and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Chandra Bhan and Radhey Shyam, non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for rent and ejectment against the petitioner-defendant tenant on the ground of personal and bonafide need and default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sold the suit property to Mohan Lal, non-petitioner No. 3, by a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1987. Mohan Lal, submitted an application in the court on 29.10.1988 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for permission to continue the suit and adding him as a co-plaintiff. The application was opposed by the defendant petitioner. The trial court after hearing the parties, allowed the application of Mohan Lal and arrayed him as plaintiff No. 3 in the suit, vide the impugned orders dated 1-6-1989 and it is against these orders that the present revision petitions have been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Dr. Niranjan Nath v. Sardar Mal and another (AIR 1950 Rajasthan 31) wherein it had been observed by a Division Bench of this Court that there is no doubt that the assignee even if he does not become a party is bound by the decision against the assignor who is already a party to the suit, but the option to become a party or to let the assignor carry on the litigation rests with the assignee and the leave to substitute the assignee in place of the assignor should not be unreasonably refused, specially where assignee is the only person who is really interested in conduct of the suit. 3. My attention has also been drawn to Smt. Daya Debi v. Chapala Debi wherein it had been observed that in a suit for ejectment filed by the assignee of premises with arrears of rent, the tenant is not required to deposit the arrears of rent which are transferred by the landlord in favour of the transferee plaintiff as the claim for arrears of rent loses the character of rent as soon as it is assigned. 4. 4. He has also placed reliance on Akkho v. Smt. M.B. Augustus (1983 RLR 383 = 1983 R.L.W. 613) wherein it was observed that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent computed before the transfer, in the absence of the contract to the contrary. 5. Reliance has also been placed on Girdharilal v. Hukum Singh and others ( AIR 1977 SC 129 ) wherein also it had been observed that the transferee is not ordinarily entitled to arrears of rent unless there is a contract to the contrary, as mentioned in Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has placed reliance on Shri Sachidanand Vedya Shankar Bharati Swami Guru Shri Sachidanand Vidya Narsinha Bharati Swami Jagadguru and another v. Shri Vidya Narsinha Bharati Guru Vidya Shankar Bharati Swami Math Karvir and another ( AIR 1927 PC 57 ) wherein it had been observed that where a party to the suit transfers his interest in the subject matter, to another and the transferee is brought on record and the transferar's name continues on record, compromise effected between the transferee and the opposite party relating to the subject-matter is valid though the transferor is not a party to the compromise. Relying on this authority, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there should be no objection if the transferee Madan Lal is also added as a party to the suit. 7. He has also drawn my attention to Bhagwati Lal v. Jhamak Lal (1982 RLR 924 : 1982 R.L.W. 463) wherein it has been held that the court should not ordinarily refuse the application of assignee or transferee pendente lite to become party defendant in the suit. 8. He has further placed reliance on an earlier decision in Narain Das v. Rajendra Singh (1972 RLW 100) wherein this Court had observed that the transferee landlord can take advantage of default in payment of rent, to the previous owner. 9. I have gone through the impugned order, the authorities cited at the bar as also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Non-petitioner No. 3 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. in the trial court for impleading him as a party plaintiff No. 3. 9. I have gone through the impugned order, the authorities cited at the bar as also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Non-petitioner No. 3 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. in the trial court for impleading him as a party plaintiff No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit had been filed on the ground of bonafide necessity as well as on the ground of default and since the original landlord who had filed the suit transferred the property to another person, the ground of ejection-bonafide necessity of the landlord cannot continue. He has further submitted that Mohan Lal should have been substituted in place of the original landlord because they have no interest in the suit property thereafter and that the defendant will have to face two suits of plaintiffs unnecessarily. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the landlord has transferred the property to Mohan Lal, plaintiff No. 3, they have lost all interests in the suit property. The transferee stepped into the shoes of transferor and is entitled to continue the suit as enjoined by Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. Therefore, these revision petitions deserve to be partly allowed. 11. In the result, both these revisions are partly allowed, the orders dated 1-6-1989 passed by the trial court, impleading Mohan Lal as a plaintiff-landlord are maintained but the original plaintiff-landlord Chandrabhan and Radheyshyam being not necessary parties, having lost their interest in the suit property, deserves to be deleted from the array of plaintiffs and therefore, their names are struck off.No order as to costs.Revisions Partly Allowed. *******