K. SRINIVASAN Vs. V. NANDAGOPAL CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in R.C.O.P. Nos. 15 of 1993 and 18 of 1993 is the petitioner in these civil revision petitions. The 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition No. 3525 of 2000 filed R.C.O.P. No. 15 of 1993 against the civil revision petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Villupuram for fixation of fair rent. The 1st respondent in the civil revision petition No. 3531 of 2000 filed R.C.O.P. No. 18 of 1993 for an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Land and Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. Pending the above petitions, the civil revision petitioner sold the property in question to the respondents 2 to 7 in R.C.O.P. 15 of 1993 on 3.3.1997. An ex parte order of eviction was passed on 5.3.1997. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 37 of 2000 seeking for a direction to implead the purchasers namely the respondents 2 to 7 in the civil revision petition in R.C.O.P. under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The said I.A. was allowed on 21.8.2000. The respondents in the civil revision petition also filed I.A. No. 38 of 2000 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for a direction to amend the petition as set out in the petition in detail in order to determine the real controversy between the parties. The said petition was allowed on 7.9.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed C.R.P. No. 3531 of 2000. The respondents in the civil revision petition also filed I.A. No. 36 of 2000 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to amend the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 15 of 1993. The said petition was also allowed by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 7.9.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, C.R.P. No. 3525 of 2000 has been filed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in both the petitions, the details of the amendment have been furnished by the respondents herein. The amendment has been sought on the ground of new cause of action. The learned counsel submitted that R.C.O.P. No. 18 of 1993 has been filed for eviction on the ground of owners occupation. Originally, the petition was filed by one V. Nandagopal Chettiar alone on the ground of onwers occupation. The said Nandagopal Chettiar sold the property under two registered sale deeds to Thiru R.S. Mani and Thiru N.K.M. Jiyayudeen on 3.3.1997. The cause of action for eviction being owners occupation which is in the nature of a personal relief cannot be a ground for the subsequent purchasers to agitate the very same petition. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller was not right in allowing the applications in I.A. Nos. 36 and 38 of 2000. For the said submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in "Srinivasan v. Santhanan Selvaraj, 2000(2) RCR(Rent) 426 (Madras) : 2000(3) CTC 537" to contend that subsequent purchaser is not entitled to continue claim for eviction on the ground of owners occupation which is "peculiarly personal to erstwhile landlords". Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE question that is to be now considered is as to whether the petitioners 2 to 7 in the R.C.O.P. who were subsequently impleaded in the place of the 1st petitioner who was the erstwhile owner of the premises in question and who has sold the property to the petitioners 2 to 7 are entitled to proceed with the eviction proceedings initiated by the erstwhile landlord namely the 1st petitioner. In the judgment reported in 2000(3) CTC 537, it is true that this Court has held that the subsequent purchasers are not entitled to prosecute with the eviction petition filed by the erstwhile landlord when such petition was filed for eviction on the ground of owners occupation. However, in the very same judgment, the learned Judge has held that subsequent purchasers are entitled to proceed with the eviction petition filed by the erstwhile landlord other than the grounds of owners occupation thereby meaning such a petition could be agitated by the subsequent purchasers on the ground of wilful default etc. Coming to the facts of this case, it is to be noted that an eviction petition was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) for owners occupation by one V. Nandagopal Chettiar. After he has sold the property to the two individuals, a petition for bringing subsequent purchasers and their legal heirs as petitioners 2 to 7 was filed. In the said petition, V. Nandagopal Chettiar himself has stated that there was a denial of title on the part of the civil revision petitioner and, therefore, the civil revision petitioner was liable to be evicted on that ground also. When a specific pleading has been taken that there was a denial of title, it is to be now considered as to whether the learned Rent Controller can proceed with the eviction petition on the ground of owners occupation as well as the denial of the title also. This Court in the judgment reported in 1996(1) Mad LJ 364 has held that the amendment was necessitated because of subsequent event after the filing of R.C.O.P. where the petitioner denied his title of the respondent and in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, and, therefore, the amendment sought has to be ordered. The very same view has been taken by this Court in yet another judgment reported in 1996(1) Mad LJ 350 wherein this Court has held as follows :-