K SITARAMA RAO Vs. RATANLAL PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five Revisions are being disposed of by this common order as the questions of fact and law involved in them are similar. The petitioner in these Revisions is the tenant of the suit premises. The original landlord who is respondent No. 7 in these Revisions filed five eviction petitions on different grounds namely wilful default in payment of rent etc. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' respondent No. 7, that is the original landlord sold the suit premises to respondents 1 to 6 and 8 before me. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 6 and 8 filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead them as parties in the place of original landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed that petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller the purchasers filed an appeal. The appellate authority under the Act allowed the appeal and also the petition to implead them as parties. Hence these Revisions.

(2.) Sri B. Subhashan Reddy the learned advocate for the petitioners in these Revisions has raised the following contentions (1) that the appea preferred by respondents 1 to 6 and 8 herein before the appellate authority was not maintainable because the order of the Rent Controller dismissing their petition to implead them as parties under Order 1 R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be considered as affecting the rights and liabilities of the parties. In support of this contention the learned advocate has cited the decisions reported in Lingayya V. Lakshminarasmma (1962 (1) A.L.T. 434) and Chaganlal (Died) Sardarilal V.N. Pershad (1972 (1) A.P.L.J. 343). The second contention of Mr. Subhashan Reddy Is that the moment the original landlord sold the suit premises to respondents 1 to 6 and 8, what ever cause that was applicable to the landlord was lost and therefore the proceedings ought to have been terminated. The third contention of Mr. Subhashan Reddy is that the original landlord has filed the eviction petitions on the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent. So far as the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent is concerned, Mr. Subhashan Reddy says that the sale deed in favour of respondents 1 to 6 and 8 is completely silent with regard to the collection of the arrears of rent. If at all, the purchasers under the sale deed will have the rights accruing to them only after the registration of the sale deed and whatever rights the original landlord had since they were not conveyed expressly or by implication to the purchasers, they cannot be acquired by them. So far as the first contention is concerned namely the maintainability of the appeal before the appellate authority egainst the order allowing the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and making respondents 1 to 6 and 8 herein as parties, it has to be noted that a Full Bench of this Court in P.N. Rao V. K. Radhakrishna Macharyulu (A I R. 1978 A. P. 319) has held that in those matters which have not been specifically provided for by the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable provided that they are not contrary to the provisions of the Act. Since the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are silent with regard to the addition of the parties during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, therefore in the light of the ruling of Full Banch I am of the opinion that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code could be made applicable to eviction proceedings. Now under Order 1 Rule 10 or under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure a person can be made a party by virtue of the happening of a subsequent vent during the pendency of the suit or the proceedings. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) empowers the court to make a person as a party to the suit in order to enable the court to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit effectually and completely. It is now well-settled that if any subsequent event takes place during the pendency of the proceedings or the suit the court can order amendment or add parties to the suit or proceedings. Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. provides that in cases of an assignment, creation, or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. This provision envisages a case where during the pendency of the suit or proceedings, an event takes place whereby assignment or creation or devolution of any interest has occurred as a result of which the original party has lost his right to file the suit or has transferred the same to another person who was not so far a party to the suit. Moreover, section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act provides.

(3.) Hence these Appeals dismissed with costs one set.