C. L. CHAUDHRY ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 1. 5. 1992 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a respondent in the eviction petition was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1/landlady herein filed an eviction petition against Mr. Sunil Chadha under Section 14 (l) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground of non-payment. The petitioner M/s. Anil Chadha and Co. filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code before the Rent Controller for impleading them as a party in the eviction proceedings. It was alleged in the application that the landlady had filed false eviction proceedings knowing fully well that the applicant was a tenant and had been paying rent to the landlady. After sometime she refused to accept the rent and thereafter it was deposited in the court of Rent Controller. It was further alleged that the applicant was a necessary party and his presence was necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the disputes involved in the eviction petition. ( 3 ) THE application was dismissed by the trial court for the reason that there was no prima facie proof to believe that the applicant had any interest in the property so as to implead him in the eviction proceedings. It was also observed by the trial court that it would be open to the applicant to take recourse to the proviso to Section 25 of the Act. This is the order which has been challenged in this revision petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any legal infirmity in the order, of the trial court. The trial court came to the conclusion that prima facie no material was placed on record to show that the applicant was a tenant. The impugned order was passed by the trial court after taking into consideration the relevant material placed on record. It calls for no interference. The petition is dismissed. ( 5 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 1. 5. The impugned order was passed by the trial court after taking into consideration the relevant material placed on record. It calls for no interference. The petition is dismissed. ( 5 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 1. 5. 1992 by which the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a respondent in the eviction petition was rejected. ( 6 ) THE respondent No. I/landlady herein filed a petition for eviction against Mr. Sunil Chadha, respondent No. 2 on the ground that the tenant, respondent No. 2 had parted with possession of whole of the premises to M/s. Anil Chadha and Co. without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlady. The other ground alleged in the petition is that the premioses were let out to the petitioner for residential purpose after taking permission under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act and the tenant has misused the premises for commercial purposes. M/s. Anil Chadha and Co. , the petitioner in this revision petition filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Rent Controller for impleading them as respondent in the eviction petition filed by the landlady. It was alleged in the application that the petitioner had been sending the monthly rent to the respondent No. l by account payee cheque. She had taken the rent for certain period but thereafter refused to take the rent. Thereafter the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller. The applicant was a tenant and a necessary party to the eviction proceedings. ( 7 ) THE application was dismissed by the trial court for the reason that there was no prima facie proof to believe that the applicant had any interest in the property so as to entitle him to be impleaded as a party in the eviction proceedings. It was also observed by the trial court that it would be open to the applicant to take recourse to the proviso to Section 25 of the Act. This is the order which has been challenged in this revision petition. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was also observed by the trial court that it would be open to the applicant to take recourse to the proviso to Section 25 of the Act. This is the order which has been challenged in this revision petition. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the finding of the trial court is concerned that there was no prima facie proof to show that the applicant was a tenant in the premises, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. But there is another aspect of the matter. In the petition itself the landlady has alleged that M/s. Anil Chadha and Co. was in possession of the premises as a sub- tenant. The trial court should have allowed the application on the ground that M/s. Anil Chadha and Co. could be impleaded as a party being a sub-tenant. In an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting or parting with possession, sub- tenant is not a necessary party. It is the wish of the landlord to implead the sub- tenant as a respondent or not. Of course the sub-tenant is a proper party. Being a proper party, if a sub-tenant applies/intervenes and makes and request for being impleaded as a party to the eviction proceedings, the court is obliged to implead him. The sub-tenant is vitally interested in the result of the eviction proceedings and his presence is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the eviction proceedings between the parties. In view of this, the trial court should have impleaded the petitioner as a respondent in the eviction proceedings, being a proper party. ( 9 ) IN the result, I allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated 1. 5. 1992 of the trial court. The trial court is directed to implead the petitioner as a respondent in the eviction proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in these terms.