ORDER S.U. Khan, J.
1. The land over which shop in dispute is constructed is the wakf property which was given on lease to Arun Kumar, respondent No. 1 through a deed executed on 20.10.1983. Thereafter another deed was also executed on 20.7.1984. Through the said deed Arun Kumar, respondent No. 1 was permitted to construct shops over the leased land and let out the same and realize the rent thereof. According to petitioner-wakf, some shops were constructed by Arun Kumar, which he let out to sub-tenants including respondent No. 2. The period of lease provided under the aforesaid deeds of 1983 and 1984 was, according to the petitioner, orally extended and ultimately the lease was terminated through notice in the year 2001. Thereafter petitioner filed suit for eviction against respondent No. 1 Arun Kumar and his sub-tenants, including Shrimati Urmila, respondent No. 2, who was defendant No. 6 in the said suit. The said suit is pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Saharanpur in the form of Suit No. 666 of 2004. In para 8 of the plaint of the said suit it is mentioned that defendant No. 1, i.e., Arun Kumar has sublet the shops to defendants 2 to 14. The said suit was filed on 8.11.2004. Prior to the said suit, respondent No. 1 Arun Kumar had filed suit against respondent No. 2 Shrimati Urmila for eviction from the shop in dispute. Number of the said suit is S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 2004 which is pending before Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur. The said suit was filed on 7.10.2004. In the suit by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2, petitioner filed impleadment application which has been rejected by Judge, Small Causes Court/District Judge, Saharanpur through order dated 8.4.2005. The said order is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that it has got paramount title and as lease granted by it to respondent No. 1 has been terminated, hence respondent No. 1, the chief tenant, is not entitled to seek eviction of sub-tenants, who were inducted by him and it is only petitioner, who can obtain possession from them. This point is clearly covered by two authorities of the Supreme Court in Vashu Deo v. Bal Kishan and Om Prakash Gupta v. R.B. Goyal . In the said authorities it has been held that sub-tenant cannot attorn in favour of paramount title holder unless paramount title holder has got good and present title to the property has further been held that merely because paramount title holder has filed eviction suit against the chief tenant, it will not make any difference.
3. Accordingly, there is no error in the order passed by the court below rejecting impleadment application of the petitioner.
4. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
5. However, it is clarified that dismissal of petitioners' impleadment application in S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 2004 will not have any effect upon Suit No. 666 of 2004, which it has filed against respondent No. 1 in which sub-tenants, i.e., tenants of respondent No. 1, including respondent No. 2 are parties. In case the said suit is decreed, then petitioner will be entitled to possession irrespective of result of S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 2004.