- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 25.9.2007 and 28.7.2009 by which both the Courts below have allowed the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser of the disputed property.
(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 instituted a SCC Suit No. 80 of 2007 against the petitioner-tenant inter alia with the allegation that he was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs. 63.75 per month inclusion of water tax, but he had de- faulted in payment of rent from 1.12.1988 to 30.6.2008 amounting to Rs. 14,216.25 which he refused to pay despite service of notices dated 13.7.2007 and 28.7.2007 nor vacated the premises after expiry of the notice period. It was further asserted that the tenants had made material alterations without the consent of the landlord and thereby have disfigured and reduced its utility. The petitioner filed their written statement denying other allegations but admitting tenancy and rate of rent.
(3.) During its pendency, the respondent sold the disputed shop to Ankur Bharadwaj through registered sale-deed dated 21.4.2008 together with the right to prosecute the suit and right to recover the arrears of rent etc. whereupon, Ankur Bhardwaj moved an application No. 42-Ga for impleadment as plaintiff while the respondent moved application No. 45-Ga for amending the array of parties on identical grounds. Both the applications have been allowed by the Courts below giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file any additional written statement.;