JUDGMENT In this petition, dismissal of the application filed by the present petitioner for being arrayed as defendant, is being challenged. The brief facts of the case out of which this revision petition arises are as under: Rambabu is the landlord. He riled a suit against Padamchand or eviction. In plaint para 7, it has been suited that Padamchand had vacated the shop in question and that he has inducted one Nemichand. This Nemichand is non other but the present petitioner. In the plaint, it has not been stated as to in what capacity this Nemichand is in possession. Nemichand tiled an application for coming on the record. This application was declined on the ground that Nemichand had not disclosed his status that is whether he is tenant or sub-tenant. It is on this basis alone the application was declined. It is settled law that a person who is in possession as a sub-tenant is a proper party. For this reliance has been placed on Satya Prakash and another v. Gulab Chand & others (1981 MPRCJ - SN 126) and Seth Gordhandas v. Bhagwanji (1983 MPRCJ SN 3). He has also placed reliance on the decision given in Amrik Rai v. State of M.P. (1977 MPLJ SN 16). I have considered the matter. It may be seen that in 1983 MPRCJ 3, it has been specifically held that a sub-tenant or a person who is in actual occupation of the tenanted accommodation is a proper party. In the plaint it is stated that Nemichand is in possession. Therefore, he would atleast be a proper party. As such, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. Nemichand, the present petitioner, is ordered to be arrayed as a defendant to the proceedings pending in the Court below. The suit was filed in the year 1990. It is stated that the case is fixed before the trial Court for today. The added defendant would file the written st.1tcment on or before 5th of January 1995. The trial Court would take steps with a view to dispose of the matter as early as possible.