JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned brief holder for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. J.S. Bisht, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. Admittedly, the facts as culled out from the affidavits is, that the applicant’s father was the original tenant of the premises in question and, upon his death, he left behind his heirs, namely, his wife and four sons. The applicant being 20 years old and being the son of the original tenant filed an application that he should be impleaded in the eviction proceedings initiated by the opposite party no. 3 against his other co-tenants, namely, his brothers and mother. This application was resisted by the landlord on the ground that he is not a co-tenant, but, a joint tenant. The application of the applicant for impleadment as a opposite party was rejected by the trial court on the ground that he was not a necessary party. Against this, a revision was filed, which was also dismissed. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner’s father was the original tenant, consequently, his heirs become the co-tenants and not the joint tenants. It has come on record that the petitioner was residing in the premises in question and since eviction from a residential building was being sought, all the co-tenants were required to be impleaded as opposite parties. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 11.03.2005 and 22.05.2006 (Annexure-5 & 7 to the writ petition respectively) cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be impleaded as a necessary party. Since the suit is of the year 2000, the trial court is directed to decide the suit on a day-to-day basis within six months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order.