JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Agra, appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and order dated 12.5.2008 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra, appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent, Sri Ajit Singh (since deceased) who was absolute owner of Quarter No. 6/39/42, Khandari Quarters, Agra licensed the defendant-petitioner for a friendly assistance in his name of need on 19.4.1970 to use a portion of the aforesaid quarter and subsequently the defendant-petitioner was paying Rs.35/- per month as compensation/licensee fee for the friendly assistance given to him by Sri Ajit Singh. In the month of March, 1971, the original plaintiff requested original defendant-petitioner to vacate the portion in his possession and on his refusal his licence was revoked and terminated as a result of which petitioner became an unauthorized occupant. 4. Subsequently, respondent had filed suit no. 198 of 1988 in the court of Judge Small Causes, Agra for a decree of ejectment of the defendant from the portion in the aforesaid quarter no. 6/39/42 in his possession. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff-respondent sold the aforesaid property by sale-deed dated 2.4.2004 with a right to sue and recovery of rent to the sole respondent against the defendant. 5. The defence of the tenant-petitioner under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was struck off by Judge Small Causes Court vide order dated 16.3.1999 which was challenged by the petitioner in SCC Revision No. 6 of 2000 which was dismissed on 8.8.2000 by 14th Additional District Judge, Agra. Aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner filed C. M. Writ petition No. 43312 of 2000: Gangra Prasad Verma Vs. XIV A.D.J. and others which was allowed by this Court on 22.9.2008. Thereafter, an impleadment application was filed by sole respondent which was allowed holding that sole-respondent has right to pursue the suit having been specifically provided in the sale-deed. 6. After impleadment application was allowed, the sole respondent taking advantage of the aforesaid fact sought an amendment in the aforesaid suit by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Thereafter, an impleadment application was filed by sole respondent which was allowed holding that sole-respondent has right to pursue the suit having been specifically provided in the sale-deed. 6. After impleadment application was allowed, the sole respondent taking advantage of the aforesaid fact sought an amendment in the aforesaid suit by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petitioner filed objection to the said amendment which was rejected by JSCC vide order dated 12.5.2008. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner has challenged the same by means of Civil Revision No. 48 of 2008 before the District Judge, Agra which was also dismissed on 4.11.2008 holding that writ petition is a continuation of the suit and once the respondent was impleaded as a party in the writ petition, there was no need for him to be impleaded in the original suit. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if legal heir/representative of earlier landlord who had been impleaded as plaintiff, the respondent has no right to having been impleaded without there being any amendment application in this regard. 8. It appears from the record that admittedly impleadment application was filed by the landlord in the writ petition and was allowed by the Court. Therefore, only amendment was required to bring the subsequent purchaser respondent-landlord on record. It may also be noticed that the sale-deed clearly provides that subsequent purchaser namely Aashirvad Kaushal had been given power to purse the suit. 9. Thus, it appears that the Court in exercise of its inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C. has rightly allowed Ashirvad Kaushal to be arrayed as plaintiff in place of erstwhile landlord by making the order impugned for doing substantial justice between the parties. 10. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed