K MUTHUSAMY PILLAI Vs. MALLIKA, NACHIYARAMMAL, P SARAVANAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in the demised premises, which was originally belonged to the 2nd respondent. She subsequently sold the property to the first respondent and she filed RCOP No. 10 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Srivilliputtur. The said petition was allowed passing an order of eviction against the petitioner herein. Thereupon, he took up the matter on appeal in RCA No. 7 of 2007 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Srivilliputtur and the same is pending for hearing.

(2.) Pending hearing of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 146 of 2008 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead a third party by name Saravanakumar, who is the son of the second respondent. The said application was dismissed. Based on the allegation that the second respondent and her son Saravanakuamr executed the sale deed in favour of the first respondent and for that purpose, the first respondent being the Government servant, should have obtained permission from the superior viz., D.I.G of Police, Ramnad Range, the petitioner herein filed another application in I.A. No. 147 of 2008 seeking for a direction to send for the sanction accorded from the said office to establish his case and the said application was also dismissed.

(3.) Insofar as the impleadment is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr. M. Subash Babu, would submit that the petitioner has already availed opportunity before the Rent Controller, and having exhausted the same, an application for identical relief was filed and the same was also dismissed. The petitioner preferred the Civil Revision Petition before this Court and the same was also dismissed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner is precluded from filing another application before the Appellate Authority for the same relief.