JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that SCC Suit No.7 of 2007 is stranded on account of the stay order passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court on 28.03.2012 on filing the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Kumud Vaidya (petitioner), daughter of Smt. Pushpa Prasad along with Rajkumari Padmakumari Devi (now deceased). Smt. Pushpa Prasad and Rajkumari Padmakumari Devi were two sisters of Kunwar Chandra Bahadur Singh, who was the owner of a massive wealth comprising several movable and immovable properties. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL-respondent no.1) is admittedly the tenant in one of such properties and it is running its business there. 2. Initially, Smt. Pushpa Prasad launched the SCC Suit No.7 of 2007 against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) impleading Rajkumari Padmakumari (her own sister) as the proforma respondent. But since the plaintiff Smt. Pushpa Prasad died during the pendency of such Suit, hence, Smt. Padmakumari transposed in her place because later she also died, therefore, Smt. Kumud Vaidya has now been substituted in place of her mother. 3. Challenge herein is to the impugned order dated 06.01.2012 whereby learned SCC Judge allowed the application moved by one master Shubham Kumar, through his mother Arti Kumari, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment, as plaintiff, in such suit claiming inheritance over the property which is the subject matter of Suit. Such application was vehemently opposed by filing objections on behalf of Smt. Kumud Vaidya, but the learned court below has allowed the same by way of impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressly argued that there was a privity of contract between two aforenamed sisters and HPCL, hence, in the Suit, even if the ownership of Master Shubham Kumar, on the strength of Will dated 21.08.2001, is accepted for a moment, but in no case, he can be said to be the landlord. So, his impleadment was not at all warranted. The precedents, as relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are as under:- 1. Vijay Lata Sharma vs. Raj Pal and another reported in (2004) 6 SCC 762 . 2. Tribhuwanshankar vs. Amrutlal reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788 . 5. So, his impleadment was not at all warranted. The precedents, as relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are as under:- 1. Vijay Lata Sharma vs. Raj Pal and another reported in (2004) 6 SCC 762 . 2. Tribhuwanshankar vs. Amrutlal reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788 . 5. The law as laid down in the said two precedents, nowhere keeps the another landlord away from joining the litigation against the tenant. All that which was propounded, is that in the rent control litigation, the landlord need not to be an owner. This proposition nowhere stops a person claiming ownership over the rented premises to stand away from litigation against the tenant, if he wants to join the same as landlord. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Master Shubham has argued that, in fact, there was no privity of contract between these two sisters and the HPCL, rather such contract was between Kunwar Chandra Bahadur Singh and HPCL; these two ladies, while claiming succession on whole of the property, left by Kunwar Chandra Bahadur Singh, on the strength of the Will dated 02.09.2001 (unregistered), are nowhere the party to such contract. 7. Further, having a prima facie look on the subsequent Will dated 2.9.2001, whereby the previous Will dated 21.08.2001 (registered on 01.09.2001) executed by Mr. Kunwar Chandra Bahadur Singh, was allegedly revoked, does hardly inspire confidence. Otherwise also, the entire matter is to be looked in other original suits pending between the parties, viz. OS Nos. 422/2004 and 298/2011, wherein the genuineness of the registered Will dated 21.08.2001 as against the unregistered Will dated 02.09.2001 is to be evaluated after according opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. 8. That apart, I feel that if the Will dated 21.08.2001 is believed for a moment, then Master Shubham Kumar acquires the interest/ownership in the property, in question, and thus he becomes the landlord too, because every owner is the landlord while every landlord is not the owner. Therefore, even if, Smt. Kumud Vaidya is accepted, for a moment, in the capacity of landlord, then it is also difficult to deny that Master Shubham does not possess such status. 9. I feel that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. Therefore, even if, Smt. Kumud Vaidya is accepted, for a moment, in the capacity of landlord, then it is also difficult to deny that Master Shubham does not possess such status. 9. I feel that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. It is hereby made clear that any observation of this Court regarding the genuineness of either of the Wills is quite casual and that will not effect the evaluation of such Wills on merits. 10. Since, much delay has already taken place hampering the advancement of SCC Suit, so the learned Trial Judge will make every endeavour to decide the case at an early end.