NARENDRA PRASAD SAHA Vs. ANAND KUMAR SHROFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 25.4.1998 passed by the Sub -Judge I, Deoghar, in Title Suit no.6 of 1992. by which the prayer made by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 for their inclusion as plaintiffs in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) THE opposite party no.1 filed the above mentioned suit for eviction of the defendant -petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and also on the ground of personal necessity. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs by the registered sale deed as contained in Annexure -8 to the counter -affidavit sold away the suit premises to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and in the sale deed only the premises with actionable claim in the eviction suit had also been sold. But there was no specific mention in the sale deed that arrears of rent have also been sold to the opposite party nos.2 and 3. After purchase opposite party nos.2 and 3 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting them included as plaintiffs in the eviction suit. Vehement objections were raised from the side of the defendant -tenant now petitioner to the effect that the purchase made by opposite party nos.2 and 3 is hit by lis pendens and they cannot have any cause of action for eviction against the tenant on the ground of defaulter as the same cause of action was only left to the original plaintiff.

(3.) LEARNED court below after hearing both the parties allowed the petition of intervenor vide the impugned order. The only point raised for and on behalf of the petitioner before this Court to the effect that when the eviction suit is basically based on the defaulter ground and the arrears of rent had not been purchased by the purchasers through their sale deeds then they cannot continue with the eviction suit. In support of that contention a judgment of this Court as reported in 1989 Patna 13: 1988 PLJR 950 (Ram Tahal Modi v. Ratan Lal) has been referred to. In that judgment it appears that the suit premises were sold in the eviction suit to the intervenor but not the arrears of rent and as such it was held that the eviction suit on defaulter ground cannot be made maintainable by the intervenor and they cannot be allowed to join in the same suit. It is an admitted fact that by rectification of the deed opposite party nos.2 and 3 had already purchased the arrears rent also although the same was not there while the petition was disposed of but now the factual position remains that the arrears of rent have also been parchased by the intervenor.