YAMUNA Vs. A RAMA AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has been unsuccessful in the two courts below in getting herself impleaded as a party to a proceeding pending on the file of the Munsiff, Mangalore, S.K. has come up with this revision under S. 115 CPC. The proceeding (H. R. C. No. 66/71 pending on the file of the Munsiff) is one started by the first respondent against the other respondents herein claiming possession of a premises under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (h), and (p) of sub section (1) of S 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act). It may be noted that Clause (f) provides for the eviction of a tenant unlawfully sub-letting the whole or part of the premises. In so far as this part of the claim is concerned, the allegation made in the petition by the landlord is that the premises had been unlawfully sub-let by the tenants in favour of this petitioner.

(2.) Since this petitioner is not a party to the proceeding, she filed I. A. IV under S. 22 of the Act read with Order 1, rule 10 (2) CPC requesting the court to permit her to come on record as a party-respondent, contending, inter alia, that the sublease in her favour was not unlawful, it having been created prior to the commencement of the Act; that even if the lease in favour of the main tenants is determined for any reason she is entitled to continue in their place as a tenant as provided under S. 22 of the Act; that, in the circumstances she is entitled to contest the application ; and that she, being a proper and necessar y party, may be permitted to come on record. The Munsiff rejected this application.

(3.) She went up in revision before the District Judge, Mangalore, in C. R. P. No 30/77. By his order dated 28-3-1977 the learned District Judge has confirmed the order of the Munsiff. The District Judge in this connection mainly places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Vasu Sapaliga vs. J. M. Lobo (1). In that case the facts were ; One J. M Lobo had filed a suit for eviction of a certain Kudupa Sapaliga alleging that he was his tenant in respect of the premises involved in the said suit and was liable to be evicted for the reasons stated in the suit. During the pendency of that suit Vasu Sapaliga made an application to get himself impleaded as a party-respondent alleging that it was he who was in occupation of the premises for over 3 5 years as a tenant and therefore he should be permitted to come on record and resist the claim. On the 1st Additional Munsiff Mangalore, rejecting that application, Vasu Sapaliga approached this Court under S. 115 C. P. C. The learned single Judge, observing as follows, dismissed that petition :