PUSHPAREKHA Vs. ABHIRAMI SRIKANTH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Nos.1 and 2, as the plaintiffs, have on 15.11.2010, filed a suit for ejectment, in respect of all that part and parcel of Flat No.2, eastern portion of the first floor, in the building known as "Kamakshi Kourt", built on property bearing No.380, 13th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru 560 080 against the respondent No.3 M/s. Concord Marketing and Services Pvt. Ltd., to pass a decree directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit premises and for payment of damages.

(2.) The respondent No.3, as the sole defendant, has filed the written statement. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 sold the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 18.09.2013 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application on 07.01.2014, under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to permit her to continue the suit in place of the plaintiffs by stating that the interest in the plaint schedule property has devolved upon her by virtue of the purchase as per the said sale deed. The Trial Judge has dismissed the application filed for substitution of the name of the petitioner, in place of the plaintiffs. Assailing the said order this writ petition was filed.

(3.) The Trial Judge has rejected the application for substitution, mainly on the ground that the defendant has not only denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant but also has challenged the important aspect of termination of tenancy and the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the issues and the plaintiff having led the evidence, the suit is at the stage of defendant's evidence and that the applicant has not produced any record except the sale deed to show the attornment of tenancy and in the absence of attornment of tenancy and in view of the recital in the registered sale deed regarding the delivery of the possession, the applicant cannot step into the shoes of the plaintiffs and that the purchaser, pendente lite, is bound by the decree passed against her vendors and she cannot as of right be impleaded in the suit for ejectment.