DURGA PRASAD Vs. LAL BABU SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is by the plaintiff. It is directed against an order transposing the intervener-defendant, Nanda Prasad Tripathi, as plaintiff in the suit. The original plaintiff assailed the order being wholly without jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are as hereunder:-- Plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction against defendant 1 for arrears of rent, personal necessity etc. The tenancy is said to have begun in. April, 1971 and the rent payable was Rs. 100/- per month according to English calendar month. The tenant stopped making payment of rent since December, 1975. Hence the suit for eviction as well as for other grounds.

(3.) Tenant-defendant filed a written statement and challenged ownership of the building in question. According to the tenant there being litigation about the ownership of the building between the plaintiff and one Gita Devi, defendant deposited the rent before the House Controller in Misc. Case No. 79/77 and, therefore, there is no default. On 12-8-1978, Gita Devi filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C., as being a necessary party in the suit and the said prayer was allowed on 2-1-1979. It may be stated here that the suit inter se between the plaintiff and Gita Devi as to who is the real owner of the property came in Second Appeal 602/74 and it was decided that the plaintiff was the benamidar and Gita Devi was the real owner of the property.