Devendra Pratap Singh, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 25.9.2007 and 28.7.2009 by which both the Courts below have allowed the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser of the disputed property. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 instituted a SCC Suit No. 80 of 2007 against the petitioner-tenant inter alia with the allegation that he was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs. 63.75 per month inclusion of water tax, but he had de­faulted in payment of rent from 1.12.1988 to 30.6.2008 amounting to Rs. 14,216.25 which he refused to pay despite service of notices dated 13.7.2007 and 28.7.2007 nor vacated the premises after expiry of the notice period. It was further as­serted that the tenants had made material alterations without the consent of the landlord and thereby have disfigured and reduced its utility. The peti­tioner filed their written statement denying other allegations but admitting tenancy and rate of rent. 4. During its pendency, the respondent sold the disputed shop to Ankur Bharadwaj through registered sale-deed dated 21.4.2008 together with the right to prosecute the suit and right to recover the arrears of rent etc. where­upon, Ankur Bhardwaj moved an application No. 42-Ga for impleadment as plaintiff while the respondent moved application No. 45-Ga for amending the array of parties on identical grounds. Both the applications have been allowed by the Courts below giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file any addi­tional written statement. 5. It is urged that the subsequent purchaser had neither any right to be impleaded as plaintiff nor he can lay any claim for eviction or arrears of rent and any cause of action for him would be after the date of purchase i.e., 21.4.2008 but as the petitioners have already deposited the entire rent upto date, the subsequent purchaser cannot evict him. 6. A copy of the sale-deed is on record and it records that the right to sue together with the right to arrears of rent has also been assigned to the pur­chaser. The Court below has considered the effect of provision of Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC. It has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, 2001 (44) ALR 579. The Court below has considered the effect of provision of Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC. It has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, 2001 (44) ALR 579. Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that in case of devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, it can be continued by or against persons upon whom such in­terest has devolved and this entitles the person who has acquired an interest in the subject matter of the litigation by an assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendentelite or suitor or any other person interested to apply to the Court for leave to continue the suit. In the opinion of the Court, both the Courts were fully justified in allowing both the applications, and the argument of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 7. There is another aspect of the matter. Though both the impugned or­ders have been passed in favour of Ankur Bhardwaj, the subsequent purchaser, but curiously he has not been impleaded as a party. It is settled principle of law and requirement of fair play that where the interest of a party is in ques­tion, he has to be impleaded and heard and no orders against his interest can be passed without hearing him. Therefore, on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondents have unnecessarily been dragged to this Court even though the petitioner has no stateable right, therefore he is liable to pay cost. 8. For the reasons above, this petition fails and is dismissed with cost, quantified at Rs. 5000/-. The costs should be deposited with the Court below within a period of a month from today; failing which the defence of the peti­tioner may be struck off. Petition Dismissed.