INDRAMANI SAHU Vs. VEDVYAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ application is directed against the orders passed by the House Rent Controller and the apellate authority rejecting the application for eviction filed by the present petitioners on the ground that such application was not maintainable.

(2.) The present petirioners filed H.R.C. Case NO. 83 of 1983 for eviction. It was claimed in the said petition that present opposite parties 1 to 3 were the tenants in respect of a building under present opposite parties 6 to 8 who had sold the said property to present opposite party No. 9. It is claimed that present petitioners have purchased different and definite portions of the said building from opposite party No. 9 by six different sale deeds. It is further alleged that opposite parties 4 and 5 were sub-tenants inducted by opposite party No. 3. On behalf of the contesting opposite parties, objection was raised regarding maintainability of one eviction proceeding. The House Rent Controller upheld such objection and held that one proceeding for eviction of different tenants who are alleged to be in possession of different portions was not maintainable, in appeal at the instance of the present petitioners, the appellate authority has upheld the finding of the House Rent Controller on this aspect and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) In this writ application, the counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the provisions contained in Order 1, Rules 1 and 3, Code of Civil Procedure, (in short, the "C.P.C.") and submitted that since the petitioners have purchased different portions of the same building from the very same landlord, and opposite parties 1 to 3 were the tenants of different portions of the same building under one landlord, a common proceeding was maintainable, as common question of law or fact would arise for determination in the house rent control proceeding even if separate applications would have been filed from the beginning.