M THANGAMANI Vs. P DHARMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 18/12/2006 passed in Interlocutory Application No. 1416 of 2005 in Rent Control Original Petition No. 1 of 2005 by the Rent Controller, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) THE revision petitioner/proposed second respondent has filed Interlocutory Application No. 1416 of 2005 in Rent Control Original Petition No. 1 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to implead him as second respondent in Rent Control Original Petition No. 1 of 2005, wherein the present revision respondents have been shown as the respondents.

(3.) IT is stated in the petition that the demised premise is originally belonged to the second respondent and he leased out the same to the first respondent/petitioner. The second respondent has desire to sell his demised premises to the petitioner and the sale amount has been fixed at Rs. 2,63,000/- and on 20/6/2004, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been paid as advance to the second respondent and to that effect, a sale agreement has come into existence and to that effect, a sale agreement has come into existence and the petitioner has purchased the demised premises on 16/9/2004 and since purchase he has become the owner of the demised premises. The respondents 1 and 2 have created a bogus sale agreement in favour of the first respondent, suppressing the sale made in favour of the petitioner on 16/9/2004. The first respondent has filed the Original Suit No. 144 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, wherein the present petitioner has filed an application in Interlocutory Application No. 27 of 2005, so as to implead him. The first respondent has filed Rent Control Original Petition No. 1 of 2005. Since the petitioner has purchased the demised premises, he is also a necessary party. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed.