PREETAM SINGH Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. from the order dated 23.3.1996 passed by Shri Gheesa Lal Choudhary, Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 80/95 whereby petitioner's appeal against the order dated 18.4.1995 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 3, Jodhpur has been dismissed.

(2.) NON -petitioner No. 2-plaintiff filed a civil regular suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting and personal, reasonable and bona fide necessity. During the pendency of the suit Dashrathmal sold the suit property on 2.6.1994 to Narendra Kumar. In the plaint, Dashrathmal had alleged that rent was due from petitioner since October, 1983.

(3.) AFTER acquisition of the suit property, non-petitioner No. 2 moved an application under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading him as plaintiff along with the original plaintiff. It was further prayed that his personal necessity as the ground of eviction be substituted for the personal necessity of the original owner Dashrathmal. The petitioner objected to the addition of the party on the ground that the original landlord ceases to be landlord as soon as he sold the property and intimated regarding sale to the petitioner. His cause of action came to an end and no decree in his favour could be passed. The petitioner further objected that legally the purchaser non- petitioner No. 2 could not be allowed to substitute his personal necessity for the personal necessity of the original owner Dashrathmal. The purchaser, if he wants to seek eviction of the petitioner on ground of personal necessity, must file a new suit. Learned trial Court allowed the application of non- petitioner No. 1 vide order dated 18.4.1995. The petitioner challenged the above order in appeal but the learned appellate Court, by the impugned order, rejected the appeal.