ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by an applicant who wanted to implead herself as a party to the suit for ejectment. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment against the defendant after terminating the tenancy. The defendant filed written statement contending that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant; he is not paying the rent to the plaintiff, but it is paid to T. Jayamma, the applicant. Issues have been framed and the case is set down for trial. At that juncture, the applicant has filed this application seeking impleadment as additional defendant. The said application was contested and it came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant is before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The material on record discloses that the applicant was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and filed S.C. No. 2151 of 2003 against the defendant for ejectment. It came to be decreed but the same was set aside by this Court in CRP No. 802 of 2006 and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the applicant for presenting it before the proper Court. Thereafter, the applicant sold the schedule property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 21-1-2008; she acknowledges receipt of Rs. 34,00,000/- under the sale deed. However, her grievance is, balance sale consideration is not paid. In fact, the applicant has filed P. Misc. No. 22 of 2014 challenging the sale deed dated 21-1-2008. 4. In the meanwhile, the purchaser filed the suit for ejectment against the tenant on 12-12-2012. As pointed out by the Trial Court, 50 times the case was adjourned and, on the 51st hearing this application for impleadment is filed and two years after the filing of the suit, the sale deed is challenged. In this factual background, as long as the sale deed executed by the applicant in favour of the plaintiff is in force, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property; applicant has no interest in the said property. By operation of law, the tenancy stands attorned. Defendant who was admittedly the tenant under the applicant becomes a tenant under the plaintiff. 5. By operation of law, the tenancy stands attorned. Defendant who was admittedly the tenant under the applicant becomes a tenant under the plaintiff. 5. Therefore, merely because the defendant points out and contends that the applicant is the landlord that does not enable the applicant to be impleaded as a party. For any party to get impleaded in a suit, he must have some interest in the subject-matter of the suit. Once the impleading applicant has executed a registered sale deed conveying absolute title to the plaintiff, until the sale deed is annulled, she cannot claim any right over the said property. In that view of the matter, the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmohan Lal Jain v Sangeeta Jain and Another, where it was held that, once a specific stand had been taken by the tenant that petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute, then the petitioner becomes necessary and proper party. It is not an invariable rule. The condition precedent for impleading any person to the suit is that, the person should have some interest in the schedule property. A person who has no interest is neither a necessary nor a proper party. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with law, flawless and no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order or its own observations in the suit before it or the other suit filed by the applicant for ejectment, i.e. SC No. 2151 of 2003.