T MALLIKARJUNARAO Vs. A RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revisionist herein. He has come to this Court against heavy odds, as both the Courts concurrently atcorded relief to the respondents-landlords both on the grounds of wilful default as well as bona finde requirement of the landlords. But however the great stress has been laid in this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, on the point that all the co-owners must be impleaded and without doing so, the eviction petition is not maintainable. The impleading petition the argument further runs which is now sought to be filed by the other co-owner who is left out initially cannot be allowed for the reason firstly that the provisions laid down under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. are not applicable to the Rent Control proceedings and secondly the application is only for impleading the other co-owner as respondent to this case and not to the R.C. Much of case law has been relied on by both the parties; so the same be adverted to.

(2.) In Damodaram Chetti V. Rukmar.iamma (1) 1967 (1) An.W.R. 200 a Division Bench of this Court held:

(3.) A decision of this Court in Naganath Vs.Abdul Waheed (3) 1981 (1) A.L.T. page 85 has been cited for the ratio that pleadings must be specific in the R.C. Proceedings and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are also applicable.