ORDER : The writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing in “B” Group along with an application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.247/2012 seeking vacating of the interim order granted by this Court on 2.2.2016. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2471/2012 which is pending on the file of the City Civil Court at Bengaluru City. That suit has been filed by them seeking inter alia, specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.6.2001. The petitioner herein filed an application seeking impleadment in the said suit. By the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.4, the trial Court has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the contesting respondents who have filed the application (I.A.No.1/16) and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7, 14 and 15 and perused the material on record. 4. Though during the course of submission, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 brought to my notice the fact that the applicant herein claiming to be an agricultural tenant of the defendant Nos.1 and 6 in the suit had filed an application in Form No.7A seeking grant of occupancy rights, the said proceeding has not yet been completed. In fact, there was a grant of occupancy rights earlier. Thereafter, this Court had remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. Before the Assistant Commissioner, the defendant No.1 virtually conceded the case in favour of the petitioner herein. That order has been challenged before the appellate authority and it is pending adjudication. Therefore, at this stage the applicant has no interest in the suit schedule property. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that at an appropriate stage the petitioner herein may press his application for impleadment. 6. That order has been challenged before the appellate authority and it is pending adjudication. Therefore, at this stage the applicant has no interest in the suit schedule property. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that at an appropriate stage the petitioner herein may press his application for impleadment. 6. The said submission was objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he contended that as on date there is an order in his favour and so long as the order is not set aside by the appropriate court or forum, he has a right, title and interest in the suit schedule property, as he is now the owner of the property and hence has a vital interest in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. He further submitted that the petitioner herein has an apprehension that defendants in the suit may virtually concede to the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff, in which event, the petitioner herein would be jeoparadised in so far as the interest in the suit schedule property is concerned. 7. Having regard to the facts and submissions which would not require a re-consideration and keeping in the mind the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2015 SC 1264 in the case of Baluram v P.Chellathangam and Others, it is noted that in a suit for specific performance, the following persons are considered as necessary parties;(i) The parties to the contract which is to be enforced on the legal representatives (ii) A transferee of the property which is the subject matter of the agreement. In the instant case, inasmuch as petitioner’s claim as a tenant of the suit schedule property made against the defendants in the suit has been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner and Form No.7-A filed by him has been granted in his favour, in the circumstances, he has a vital interest in the subject matter of the suit and therefore is a necessary party to the suit. In the circumstances, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking impleadment in the suit. 8. It is needless to observe that petitioner’s interest in the suit schedule property would ultimately depend upon the appellate and subsequent proceedings which would take place in regard to the grant of Form No.-7A in his favour. 9. 8. It is needless to observe that petitioner’s interest in the suit schedule property would ultimately depend upon the appellate and subsequent proceedings which would take place in regard to the grant of Form No.-7A in his favour. 9. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.11.2014(Annexure-F) is hereby quashed. Petitioner is directed to be impleaded as a defendant No.14 in the suit. He is permitted to file his written statement in the suit and also participate in the said proceedings. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The interim order granted by this Court on 2.2.2016 stands vacated. I.A.No.1/16 is accordingly disposed.