N. Subbiah v. M. Seshagiri Rao And Another

1. The order of the Appellate Authority against which this Civil Revision Petition has been filed is unsustainable. The petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the property which was in the occupation of the first respondent. The second respondent was the quondam owner of the property. I say quondam owner, because, after filing the application for eviction against the first respondent and during the course of such proceedings, the second respondent sold the property to the petitioner by a registered sale deed, dated 2nd July, 1976. Admittedly, this was at a stage when the appeal filed by the unsuccessful tenant in the eviction proceedings was pending. The appellate authority dismissed the application of the petitioner for his being brought on record in the appellate proceedings on the only ground that the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Reference was made to some Government Orders which appears to be irrelevant. 1 he question before me is whether the purchaser of a property, who has purchased the same during the pendency of some eviction proceedings filed by his vendor against the tenant, can continue the proceedings and whether in such proceedings he can seek for being impleaded as a party affected. Mr. Subramania Iyer says that the appeal filed by the first respondent has already been dismissed and that therefore, any adjudication on this question would be purely academic. Mr. Kumaraswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, says that the execution petition filed by the second respondent pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the tenant was resisted again by the tenant on the only ground that the second respondent was no longer the owner of the property and that it had been sold already to the petitioner herein. The tenant was, therefore, running from pillar to post so as to avoid eviction on all possible, but misconceived, grounds. As against such an order of dismissal made by the executing court, it appears that the present purchaser intends to file a civil revision petition as the person really aggrieved by the said order. This is, however, a different matter. But, having regard to the history and course of this litigation, I am unable to agree with Mr, Subramania Iyer that the decision on the question posed by me would be merely of academic interest.

2. The purchaser of a property, in the course of proceedings under the Rent Control Act, can be brought on record for the purpose of continuing the application filed by the quondam owner, namely, his vendor, and the mere fact that the tenant has, at the instance of the quondam owner attorned to the purchaser, who wishes to, bring himself on record in those proceedings, would not be a material interdict which would prevent the subsequent purchaser from being brought on record for continuing the proceedings either in the original stage or at the execution stage. No more authority is required for this proposition as nearly 17 years ago, this question was set at rest, after eminent counsel argued in this court, on the very point now mooted before me, in Munavar Basha v. Narayanan . 1961 2 M.L.J 174=73 L.W 692. by Jagadisan, J. I am entirely in agreement with the ratio in that decision Having regard to the continuance of the litigation in the manner referred to by me earlier, and as the interests of the petitioner are yet to be safeguarded in accordance with law and in a manner known to law I set aside the order of the court below and hold that the petitioner is a proper person to be impleaded in the above proceedings and he ought to have been impleaded as such.

3. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

VCS