GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on 28th June, 1976 for eviction of the premises leased to the defendant-appellant on two fold grounds of default in the payment of rent and, bonafide personal necessity as provided by clauses (a) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE suit was filed in the court of Munsif, Bharatpur. THE trial court framed the issues on 24th November, 1977 and passed an order on 7th January, 1978 directing the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 18/-per month and the total amount of arrears of rent was being Rs. 1020/-only. THE appeal filed against this order of 7th January, 1980, was dismissed on 11th January, 1979, On 5th February, 1980 an application was filed by the plaintiff under Section 13 (5) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant. THE trial court dismissed this application and the appeal was filed by the plaintiff and this appeal was allowed on 27th September, 1980 by the Additional District Judge, Bharatpur and the defence of the defendant was struck off. The trial Court decided the issues against the defendant-appellant on 10th November, 1981 and decreed the suit. Against this judgment and decree of the Munsif, Bharatpur, the defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge. Bharatpur which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bharatpur. During the pendency of this appeal of the defendant, the premises in dispute were transferred by the plaintiff to other persons and, therefore, the appellate court was of the -view that the ground of bonafide necessity cannot subsist. However, the finding on issue No. 3 and 5 were upheld and, it was ordered that the defendant be evicted on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of Section 13 (1) of the Act. Against the judgment & decree of the appellate court dismissing the appeal of the defendant, this second appeal has been filed by the defendant. During the course of arguments of this second appeal, Shri D. K. Soral, the learned Advocate, moved an application for permitting the purchasers of the premises in dispute, Sarva Shri Balveer Singh, Arjun Singh and Brijendra Singh s/o Nathisingh, Jat resident of village Kumha Tehsil & District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) to be impleaded as respondents-parties, as their rights are likely to be affected. This application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with S. 146, C.P.C. was filed on 8th February, 1983 after a copy of it was given to Shri P. N. Agrawal, the learned Advocate for the appellant-defendant. This prayer of the three brothers who are sons of Nathisingh deserves to be considered first in priority because during the course of the arguments both the parties were serious about the consequence of the purchasers joining in appeal or suit in an ejectment decree which has been given on the basis of the default and the result of their non-joinder as per law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Saila Bala vs. Nirmala Sundari (1) and Shew Bux Mohaata Vs. Bengal Brewaries (2).
(3.) SHRI Soral submitted that he is counsel for all the three applicants and, therefore, nothing is required to be done except permitting them to join as parties in this case. SHRI Prem Nidhi opposed the prayer of SHRI Soral on various grounds. I heard arguments at length on more than one day in main appeal and both the learned counsel were told that I would consider this application alongwith the appeal at the time of passing final order and they may address the arguments in the main appeal primarily and also on this application, so that piece meal decision are not given and hearing of the case is not prolonged by deciding this application separately. It is, therefore, necessary that it must be first understood, what is the implication of this application of Shri Soral dated the 8th February, 1983 and whether it should he allowed ? Smt. M.B. Augustus was the owner of this property and plaintiff decree holder in the present case. By a registered sale-deed dated the 16th April, 1982 Arjunsingh, Balveersingh and Brijendra Singh purchased this property. They have therefore prayed through counsel, Shri D. K. Soral that they may be permitted to be impleaded as respondents in this second appeal This application was moved on 8th February, 1983. The application is accompanied by photo-stat copy of the sale deed. This appeal was admitted on 3rd February 1983. From the proceedings of 3rd February, 1983, it appears that Shri Soral appeared on behalf of Arjun Singh, the present applicant transferee. The order of admission of this second appeal, itself, mentions that Shri Soral appeared for the alleged transferee and submitted that he will file power of attorney. At that time no objection was raised by the appellant's counsel to the appearance of Shri Soral on behalf of Arjunsingh, the alleged transferee. In fact, it was on the basis of appearance of Shri Soral on behalf of the alleged transferee from the plaintiff that the case was fixed for arguments in hearing on 7th February, 1983. Shri Soral also promised to file power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. The brother Judge, Dr. K. S. Sidhu J., admitted this second appeal and ordered that the record is not needed to be called and the following question of law may be decided- "Whether the lessor in this case is entitled to defend to decree for eviction passed in his favour and against the tenant on the ground of nonpayment of rent under section 13 (l)(a), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, notwithstanding the fact that the lessor transferred the premises in dispute in favour of Arjunsingh during the pendency of the appeal?" ;