JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.:- This revision petition, purporting to be one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as "the Code") has been directed against the order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nalagarh, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that respondent No.l (hereafter referred to as R-1) has filed an application for eviction of respondent No.2 (hereafter referred to as "R-2") under Section 14(2)(ii)(a)(v) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") on the grounds that R-2 who was inducted as a tenant on 22.11.1986 in respect of the shop on KhasraNo.1070, Khewant/Khatauni Nos. 182/232 min, measuring 29.40 Square Meters, situate in Up Mohal, Naya Nalagarh, on payment of rent, has ceased to occupy the said premises for the last more than two years continuously and more particularly since 1.1.1997 till 31.12.1998. R-2, in his reply, has admitted the non occupation of the shop in question as alleged in the application, and it has been averred that he is an old man and is living in Pinjore. It has further been averred that his sons are having their business in Nalagarh and Baddi where they are running karyana shops and that he has not sublet the demised premises to anyone including his sons and if anybody has occupied the shop, he may be an encroacher and possession may be unauthorised and illegal. The evidence and final arguments in the rent petition had already been concluded but when it was fixed for orders, the petitioner’s moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code before the Rent Controller praying that they be added as parties - respondents in the petition on the ground that they possess right and title in the premises in dispute, as joint family business of Karyana was being carried out in the demised premises and they are members of the said Hindu undivided joint family and are, therefore, necessary parties in order to decide the controversy in the petition. The application was resisted by R-l on the ground that the petitioners have got no right, title and interest in the demised premises and are, therefore our necessary parties for any relief has been claimed against them. The application was resisted by R-l on the ground that the petitioners have got no right, title and interest in the demised premises and are, therefore our necessary parties for any relief has been claimed against them. The learned Rent Controller dismissed application of the petitioners by the impugned order. Hence the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 4. Be it stated at the very outset that the impugned order has been passed in the proceedings under the Rent Act and not by a civil Court; therefore, a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code is apparently not maintainable. Therefore, the present petition could have been disposed of only on this short ground. It was, however, submitted by the learned counselor the petitioners that the impugned order has been singed by the concerned officer as sub Judge which fact misled the learned counsel to mention the revision petition to be one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Otherwise, a revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable under Section 24(5) of the Act, therefore, this Court under its inherent powers may treat the present revision petition as one having been filed under the said provisions and the wrong mentioning of the provision in the heading of the petition may be ignored. In view of these submissions, in the interest of justice, this petition is treated as a revision under Section 24(5) of the Act whereunder it is maintainable. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the sons of R-2 and are carrying on business in the demised premises, pursuant to the partnership deed dated 15.11.1986 entered into between the petitioners and R-2. Therefore, they have interest in the premises and deserve to be added as party respondents in the eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others (AIR 1958 SC 886), G.M.V. Krishnamachari v. M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal and others (AIR 1968 Madras 142) and Devi Dayal Dixit v. M/s. Rashtriya Electrical and Engineering Co. (AIR 1983 Delhi 432). 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others (AIR 1958 SC 886), G.M.V. Krishnamachari v. M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal and others (AIR 1968 Madras 142) and Devi Dayal Dixit v. M/s. Rashtriya Electrical and Engineering Co. (AIR 1983 Delhi 432). 6. In Razia Begums case (supra) while dealing with the question of "addition of parties" under rule 10 of Order 1 of the code, the observations of the Apex Court relied upon for the petitioner, read as under: "(1) That the question of addition of parties under R.10 of 0.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in S.I 15 of the Code; (2) That in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation; (3) Where the subject matter of a litigation, if a declaration as regard status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy;" 7. There is no dispute that the premises were taken on rent by R-2 vide rent deed dated 12.11.1986 in his individual capacity and not for any firm. It appears that subsequently R-2 and the petitioners entered into a partnership on 15.11.1986 i.e. subsequent to the execution of the aforesaid rent deed. It is not the case of the petitioners that any fresh tenancy in favour of said partnership was ever created or consented to by the land owner i.e. R-l. This in fact was a family affair of the petitioners and R-2 and their acts do not bind R-1 to accept the petitioners as his tenants. It is not the case of the petitioners that any fresh tenancy in favour of said partnership was ever created or consented to by the land owner i.e. R-l. This in fact was a family affair of the petitioners and R-2 and their acts do not bind R-1 to accept the petitioners as his tenants. Therefore, the petitioners though may have commercial interest in the business which was once carried in the premises, but they cannot be said to have direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest, more so in view of the admission of R-2 that he was the sole tenant of the demised premises. Therefore, the above quoted decision does not help the petitioners in any manner. 8. In G.M.V. Krishnamacharis case (supra), the Madras High Court held that the language employed in Order t Rule 10 of the Code confers upon the Court a very wide jurisdiction and the Court should not be disposed to a curtailment of the powers more than what is expressly decided by judicial decisions. However, it was further held therein that the interest that is necessary to make a person a party is legal interest including equitable interest that is an interest which the law would recognise and uphold. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have no such interest involved in the matter which may be determined by the Rent Controller in eviction proceedings. 9. In Devi Dayal Dixits case (supra), the Delhi High Court held that under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, not only the Court is competent but is required to add the name of any person who ought to have been joined as a party, whether as a plaintiff or as a defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. It was further held that where in a suit for eviction, a party who had been in occupation of the premises for quite some time before the institution of the suit and had claimed to be the original tenant and not the person proceeded against, he would have a right to be impleaded as a party defendant In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the tenancy in respect of the demised premises came to be created vide rent deed dated 12.11.1986 which deed admittedly and apparently created tenancy in favour of R-2 alone and none else nor it is the case of the petitioners that by the said deed, they got the right of tenancy alongwith their father in any manner. Thus, the aforesaid decisions do not help the petitioners. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel, for R-l has contended that the petitioners have no case for being impleaded as party - respondents because no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between them. To support his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others 1992(2) SCC 524; Harbhajan Singh v. Sarup Singh and others (1993 Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 203) (Punjab & Haryana) and Anokhe Lal v. Radhamohan Bansal and others 1997(1) Civil Court Cases 496 (SC). 11. In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmals case (supra), the appellant was in possession of a service station under a dealership agreement on the land held by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation respondent No.2 therein as lessee. Respondent No. 1, the Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the appellant for demolition of two chattels on the terrace of the premises on the ground that these were unauthorised structures. The appellant instituted a suit challenging the validity of the notice and for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structure. Said respondent No.2 therein applied for being impleaded as additional defendant in the suit on the ground that it had material to show that the structures were unauthorised and it was necessary party to the litigation. The application was allowed and said responent No.2 was added as a party defendant in the suit. The appellant therein filed a petition under Article 227 challenging the order and the petition was dismissed by the High Court. The application was allowed and said responent No.2 was added as a party defendant in the suit. The appellant therein filed a petition under Article 227 challenging the order and the petition was dismissed by the High Court. The order of the High Court was challenged in the Apex Court on the grounds that plaintiff was dominus litis and, therefore, could not be forced to join respondent No.2 as defendant and even otherwise respondent No.2 therein was neither necessary nor property party to the suit and such an addition would enlarge the issue in the suit. The Apex Court held the orders passed by the Courts below to be wrong and set those aside holding that rule 10(2) of Order 1 gives wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties by bringing necessary parties on record. Necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effective and in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceedings. The addition of party is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It was further held that a clear distinction has been drawn between suits relating to property and those in which the subject matter of litigation is a declaration as regards the status or legal character. In the former category, the rule of present interest as distinguished from the commercial interest is required to be shown before a person may be added as a party. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action that is he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally, that is by curtailing his legal rights. The rule does not contemplate joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his cause of action. 12. In Harbhajan Singhs case (supra) it was held that the plaintiff being the dominus litis, the Court should not normally add a party against his wishes unless presence of such person is necessary to enable the Court to completely adjudicate upon the question arising in the suit. 13. 12. In Harbhajan Singhs case (supra) it was held that the plaintiff being the dominus litis, the Court should not normally add a party against his wishes unless presence of such person is necessary to enable the Court to completely adjudicate upon the question arising in the suit. 13. In Anokhe Lals case (supra), the Apex Court held that in case the consequence of addition of a third party in a suit would involve a denovo trial, the Court should normally disallow the application. In that case, it was a suit for eviction of partnership firm which was contested by one partner. Son of another deceased partner of the firm moved an application for impleading him as a party defendant which was rejected on the ground that it is not mandatory to join the legal representatives of a deceased partner as a party in the suit. The law as aforesaid fully justifies the stand taken by R-l. 14. As already seen, in the instant case, R-1 has instituted the petition for eviction against his admitted tenant R-2 who has not disputed his status as the sole tenant in the premises. Therefore, no such legal or even equitable interest vests in the petitioners on the strength whereof they may be impleaded as party - respondents to the eviction petition. In case addition of parties in the facts and circumstances, as of this case, is allowed, some unscrupulous litigants may render it virtually impossible to finally dispose of a case. Be it stated that the final arguments in the rent petition had already been heard by the rent Controller and the petition had already been fixed for final orders when the application was moved by the petitioner for adding them as party respondents. Allowing their application at such a belated stage would reopen the entire case which is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. As already stated, the power to add parties is a discretionary power and the learned Rent Controller has exercised his discretion by rejecting the application and no illegality or impropriety has been shown in the exercise of such discretion which may lead this Court to interfere with the impugned order. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in the present revision petition which is accordingly dismissed Respondent No.l is directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.12.2000. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in the present revision petition which is accordingly dismissed Respondent No.l is directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.12.2000. Records of the authority below be returned forthwith. Petition dismissed