- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner / tenant challenging the order, dated 14.09.2018, passed in E.A.No.579 of 2017 in E.P.No.152 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2008 by the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, whereby and whereunder the Court below allowed the petition filed by the first respondent / landlord, thereby impleaded the 2nd respondent / subsequent purchaser.
(2.)The first respondent / landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2008 for eviction against the petitioner / tenant on the ground of wilful default and own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller had allowed the petition, against which the petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2010. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. Subsequently, the first respondent/landlord filed E.P.No.152 of 2010 for execution of the decree. During the pendency of the execution petition, the petitioner / tenant filed C.R.P.(MD).No.2697 of 2010 against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. This Court, by order dated 28.06.2017, dismissed the revision petition, confirming the orders passed by the Courts below. While so, in the execution petition, the first respondent / landlord filed E.A.No. 152 of 2010 seeking to implead the second respondent / subsequent purchaser on the ground that he already sold the property to the 2 nd respondent / subsequent purchaser on 30.12.2011 and he has become owner from that day onwards and therefore, he is a necessary party to be impleaded in the execution proceedings. The Court below has allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ tenant filed this Civil Revision Petition.
(3.)The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / tenant submitted that both the Courts below allowed the petition filed by the first respondent / landlord on the ground of own use and occupation, and default in payment of rent. Relying upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in N.Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs. S.Krishnamurthy and others, reported in 2016(1) MWN (Civil) 568, he would further submit that the 2nd respondent / subsequent purchaser cannot continue the eviction proceedings on the ground of own use and occupation as it is personally attached to the first respondent / landlord and on the ground of wilful default as there is no specific assignment of the rent due. Without considering the above aspects, the Court below has erroneously allowed the impleading petition and impleaded the 2nd respondent / subsequent purchaser. Thus, he prayed to allow this petition.