BRIJ GOPAL BHATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal against an order rejecting the application of the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C

(2.) The appellant who is tenant of the accommodation under sale, filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. In that objection it was not suggested what injury or what substantial injury had been suffered by him as a result of the sale. The learned Civil Judge, Mathura, dismissed the objection firstly on the ground that it was not maintainable, as a tenant is not a person whose interests are affected by the sale, and secondly on the ground that no substantial injury having been alleged in the objection the objection was not maintainable. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) It has been contended in this appeal that the expression "whose interests are affected by the sale" used in Order XXI, Rule 90 (1), C. P. C. is wide enough to include a tenant or a lessee of immovable property and that after sale there being a danger of the appellant being ejected he would suffer substantial injury if the sale is allowed to stand.