(1.) The Respondent had filed a suit for possession against Maiden Circuit Ltd., being Suit No.298/1995. In the course of those proceedings an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by the Plaintiff. While that application was being adjudicated upon, Nova India Ltd. filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment in the said suit. It was alleged that payments were made by Demand Drafts but because of the intrinsic nature of this mode of tender, it cannot be implied that the landlady was aware, or should be held to be aware, that the rent was being paid by Nova India Limited. It is also well established that payment of rent, per se, does not evidence the existence of a tenant/landlord relationship. There is no legal embargo in a person paying rent on behalf of the tenant.
(2.) However, in the very first paragraph it had been pleaded that "the applicant is the assignee of Maiden Circuit Ltd. and has come to know about the present proceedings very recently." It appears that Maiden Circuit Ltd. was liquidated by the Orders dated 11.8.1999 passed by the Company Judge of this Court. The application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was rejected by the Trial Court by Order dated 18.7.2000 with the following observations :
(3.) By that very Order the Plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was allowed and the suit for possession was decreed. The applicant namely Nova India Ltd., which appears now to have changed its name to M/s Yadu India Ltd., has not assailed the Order rejecting its impleadment in the suit for possession, and this view/finding has attained finality.