ANNAMALAI Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER THIRUVENNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Thiruvannamalai in I.A.No. 10/1995 in R.C.O.P.No. 18/1994, in which the learned Rent Controller has allowed the petitioner in I.A. 10/95 who is a third party to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings.

(2.) THE Rent control Original Petition has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the said Interlocutory Application, as landlords seeking eviction of the third respondent in the said I.A., on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of denial of title of the landlords by the tenants.

(3.) ADMITTELY by the tenant, there is no privity of the contract between him and the Official Receiver. We have already seen that the tenant has admitted the tenancy which he had entered into with the petitioners. When the tenant who has admitted his tenancy agreement with the petitioners and yet has chosen to deny the title of the petitioners as landlords, on account of the receipt of the notice by the Official Receiver, the question that arises for consideration is whether such denial of the title of the petitioners in respect of the petition-mentioned property is a bona fide one on the part of the tenant or not. This question can be decided, even in the absence of the Official Receiver, who wants him to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. If the tenant had established that there is a rival claim by the Official Receiver with regard to the rent payable by him, even though he had entered into a tenancy agreement with the petitioners, the question whether the denial of title of the petitioners by him can be answered. For that purpose, the presence of the Official Receiver is not necessary. The presence of the Official Receiver may be required if the Rent Controller is asked to decide who is entitled to the title to the petition- mentioned property. The Rent Controller has no jursidiction or powers of decide the question of title in respect of the property and it is the enclusive right and duty of the Civil Court to decide the title. As per Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only if a complete and effectual adjudication upon the question of title is to be made, the Official Receiver can be considered as a necessary or a proper party. When the Rent Controller cannot adjudicate upon the title much less effectively and completely, the presence of the Official Receiver cannot be considered as a must to order impleading of the Official Receiver.