- (1.)The instant civil revision has been filed by the non-applicant/ petitioner (herein 'the non-applicant') under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge No.1, Alwar (Raj.) [for short 'the court below'), whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the non-applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in an eviction petition filed before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar.
(2.)Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar on the ground of material alteration default and nuisance. Non-applicant filed written statement of denial. The case has been posted for evidence and during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner- non-applicant-tenant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with the averments that the applicant entered into a contract with Hetram Mill and Pushpendra Choudhary and sold the rental premises to the aforesaid persons on 26.10.2018 and possession of the maximum property was handed over to the purchaser. During the course of cross examination, agreement to sale (Ex.A34) was produced before the court below and during the course of cross-examination this fact was admitted by the applicant s that they sold the property to the aforesaid persons. The non-applicant filed aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC mainly mentioning therein that no cause of action remains, as such the petition is apparently barred by law and liable to be dismissed under the aforesaid provisions.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner- non-applicant argued that the Rent Tribunal erred in rejecting the application filed by the non-applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is not in dispute that during the course of cross-examination of the applicants/ respondents (herein 'the applicants'), the agreement (Ex.A34) was produced and it is admitted that the applicants entered into an agreement to sale with Hetram Mill and Pushpendra Choudhary. In view of the aforesaid fact, no cause of action survives in favour of the applicants but the learned court below did not consider the fact of subsequent event. When the non-applicant sold the property in question, he cannot claim the possession from the applicants- tenant. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
1. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and Ors., reported in (2004) 11 SCC 168;

2. Hasmati Rai and Anr. Vs. Raghunath Prashad, reported in 1981 (2) RCR 405.