Manmohan Singh vs Crompton Greaves Limited, Dr. Gandi Marg Bombay and others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—An application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act''), was filed on 20.9.1983 by Kuldip Singh and Associates and one Mohinder Singh as landlords (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3) against Cremation Greaves Limited, Respondent No. 1, in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, on the ground that the tenant Respondent No. 1 had ceased to occupy the portion of the ground-floor of the building described in the head note of the application which it was a tenant for a period of more than four months with effect from 1.1.1982. This ground of eviction falls within the mischief of Clause (v) of Section 13(2) of the Act. When the eviction application was pending before the learned Rent Controller an application under Order I, Rule 10. Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by Manmohan Singh Petitioner herein stating that he had purchased the property in dispute in which Respondent No. 1 was a tenant from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 17.7.1986. He prayed that he should be allowed to be brought on the record of the ejectment application as a Petitioner in place of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. This application was however, dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 16.9 1986 on the ground that the cause of action which had accrued to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for seeking Ejectment of Respondent No 1 to the effect that it had ceased to occupy the premises in dispute did Dot survive on the sale of the property by them to the Petitioner. Aggrieved against this order, the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present revision petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the learned Rent Controller seriously erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction by declining the application of the Petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10. Code of Civil Procedure. Where a ground for eviction has become available to the previous landlord and he had not condoned the same and rather be has filed an eviction application seeking ejectment of the tenant on that ground which is pending when the transfer of property takes place, it can in no circumstances be said that the cause of action has ceased to exist. It would have been a different matter if the previous landlord in spite of his knowledge of the fact that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for a period of four months condoned this fault of the tenant and allowed him to continue in the premises. That is certainly not the position here Ejectment application against Respondent No. 1 filed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is pending The Petitioner ought to have been all owed to step into their shoes and prosecute the ejectment application to its logical end The cause of action certainly survived and was available to the Petitioner.

Consequently, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 16.9.1986 passed by the learned Rent Controller. I allow the application of the Petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, and direct that he should be impleaded as a Petitioner in the application u/s 13 of the Act in place of Respondents No. 2 and 3 and then the application should be proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.