Judgment :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 14.12.2005 in I.A.No.403 of 2005 in O.S.No.955 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram. The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent with interest against the second respondent herein, who was the sole defendant, on the basis that the second respondent is running a school in the premises belonging to the petitioner and hence the second respondent is liable to pay rent. 2. During the trial of the suit, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.403 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 C.P.C., for the purpose of impleading himself as a party. The averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition for impleading, show that the School Committee of the second respondent School, which was conducting the school, has become defunct, after the demise of the founder of the School in the year 1970. It was, in those circumstances, the second respondent School was taken over by the Government. It is the further case of the first respondent herein that the sister of the founder viz., one Andal Ammal found a Trust called Rao Sahib C.M. Subbaraya Mudaliar Educational Trust in the year 1979 for conducting the school. It is also the specific case of the first respondent in the affidavit that the said first respondent Trust is negotiating with the Government for handing over the management of the School to the first respondent Trust and the process of negotiating with the Government is pending. Therefore, according to the impleading petitioner, who is the first respondent herein, he is a necessary and proper party and he is interested only in the subject matter which is the School. 3. The petitioner herein has filed a counter affidavit before the trial Court, controverting the statement made by the first respondent in the impleading petition, by clearly stating that even after the School Committee was taken over by the Government, the rent has not been paid and it is also the specific case of the petitioner herein that the said Andal Ammal has no right to create any Trust in respect of the second respondent School. 4. 4. The learned trial Judge, however, has allowed the said petition for impleading the first respondent on the sole ground that the proposed party has stated that he is negotiating with the Government to take over the management of the defendant School and therefore, the proposed party is interested in the management of the school and he has to be impleaded, which is challenged by the plaintiff in the suit and in the present revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr.E. Omprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sundar Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as on date, the first respondent has no subsisting interest over the running of the School at all. Admittedly, when the second respondent School is a tenant under the petitioner, who is in default of payment of rent, the impleading of the first respondent, who is a third party and who has nothing to do with the School, as on today, will only create problems and multiplicity of proceedings. Apart from that, the third party, who is not a tenant under the petitioner, will be compelled to be a tenant under the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent, who was impleaded, would submit that inasmuch as under the provision of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, when the management of the School has been taken over by the Government and admittedly, if the Government decides to hand over the administration of the School to the first respondent, the right of the first respondent will be established and therefore, it cannot be said that the first respondent is not the proper party. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge shows that only taking into consideration that the first respondent is negotiating with the Government and therefore, he has got some interest over the subject matter of the property in dispute in the suit, he has been impleaded as a party. In my view, this is not correct and admittedly, the first respondent Trust has nothing to do with the management of the second respondent School. In my view, this is not correct and admittedly, the first respondent Trust has nothing to do with the management of the second respondent School. Even the management of the school is given to the first respondent at one point of time accepting the claim of the first respondent to hand over the school, this will not give a right, since it is a matter of contractual relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent as landlord – tenant. 9. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that the first respondent is not a proper and necessary party. He has absolutely no interest over the subject matter of property in dispute, which is involved in the present suit and therefore, the order of the learned trial Judge is set aside. It is also relevant to point out that this is not as if the first respondent will be left in lurch. Consequently, if the Government passesan order in favour of the first respondent in respect of handing over the School, it is always open to the first respondent to work out his remedy, known to law. 10. Therefore, the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.403/2005 in O.S.No.955/2004 dated 14.12.2005 is set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the same to this court. 11. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.