N. Subbanna vs N. Seshagiri Rao and Another

T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.—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

quandom owner of the property. I say quandom 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 that 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 CPC was not

applicable to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Reference was made to some Government order which

appears to be irrelevant. The 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. Subrahmania Iyer says that the appeal filed by the first respondent had already been dismissed and that

therefore any adjudication on this question would be purely academic. Mr. Kumaraswamy, 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. Subrahmania Iyer that the decision on the question posed by me would be merely of academic interest.

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 quandom owner, namely, his vendor, and the mere fact that the tenant has, at the instance of the quandom 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 the proposition as nearly seventeen 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 and Another Vs. V. Narayanan and Another, , 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. The Civil

Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.