ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28.09.2011 passed in Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2010 by learned Munsif Vaishali at Hajipur whereby the Court below has rejected an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of the petitioner as party in that suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Eviction Suit was filed by Satya Narayan Prasad Jaiswal seeking eviction of Respondent No. 2 on various grounds including non-payment of rent for a long period of time. During the pendency of the suit Eviction Suit, the petitioner is said to have purchased the entire suit property by virtue of a sale deed executed by Kiran Devi and Meena Kumari, daughters of Satya Narayan Prasad Jaiswal and Tara Devi, wife of said Satya Narayan Prasad Jaiswal, who is the plaintiff before the Court below. 3. He submits that the suit was filed by Respondent 1st set Satya Narayan Prasad Jaiswal for eviction of Respondent No. 2 Amarnath Rai, claiming that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between them. 4. From the impugned order it appears that there is no denial by the Respondent No. 2 that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Respondent No. 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-4 of the present application, which is an application before the Court below under Order I Rule 10 of the Code filed by the petitioner. There is specific noting by Respondent No. 1 over the said application that he did not have any objection if the petitioner was impleaded as a party. 6. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the specific case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the suit property through registered sale deed executed by the daughters and wife of the plaintiff who is Respondent No.1 in the present case. The plaintiff has not objected to the petitioner being impleaded as a party. In such circumstance, I do not find any reason as to why the Court below should refuse the petitioner to be impleaded as a party. 7. Though it is an eviction suit, so as to protect his interest, the petitioner in my opinion is a necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the case and is entitled to be impleaded. 8. 7. Though it is an eviction suit, so as to protect his interest, the petitioner in my opinion is a necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the case and is entitled to be impleaded. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to implead the petitioner, as one of the defendants in Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Munsif-II, Vaishali at Hajipur. 9. This application is accordingly allowed.