( 1 ) THE question that arises in this revision is, whether the purchaser of the tenant-occupied premises can file an application under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure code, so as to be brought on record as one of the petitioners to the main petitioners to the main petition filed by his vendor for eviction of vendor s tenant from the said premises.

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are the tenants. The 2nd respondent herein filed I. A. No. 435 of 1978 in R. C. C. No. 87 of 1974 to add her as the 2nd petitioner in the main R. C. C. under Order 1, rule 1c and section 131, Civil Procedure code. That petition was filed on the basis that pending the main R. C. C. she purchased the premises in question and, therefore, she would like to be added as the 2nd petitioner for the purpose of evicting the respondents-tenants from the said premises. An objection was raised by the petitioners herein stating that Order 1, rule 10 has no application and the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to allow the said I. A. The Rent Controller allowed the application holding that Order J, rule 10 and section 151, civil Procedure Code, are applicable to the case on hand. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Control Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada ). The Appellate Tribunal, Kakinada, confirmed the said order and dismissed the appeal. As against that, this revision is preferred.

( 3 ) SRI Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order of the Rent Controller as well as that of the appellate Tribunal confirming the same, are erroneous and, therefore, without any jurisdiction. Further, the Appellate Tribunal has not considered the various judgments of this Court as well as the Madras High Court cited before it. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have absolutely no application whatsoever and that, inasmuch as the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent control Act ) does not contain any provision similar to Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and if the Rent control Act, which is a special legislation, is itself silent and had not got any provision for allowing an application like the aforesaid interlocutory application, entertainment of any application for impleading the petitioners will be one without jurisdiction and, therefore, the order under revision is null and void. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision in v. M. Naidu v. Kasim Khan, R. Venkateswarlu v. K. Subrahmanyam and Chekoti lingayya v. Ravipati Lakshmi Narasimha

( 4 ) IN V. M. Naidu v. Kasim Khan, the respondent-landlord sought for eviction of the tenant for his own occupation. Though he adduced evidence as to his requirement for additional accommodation, he did not seek to have the eviction petition amended before the Rent Controller before adducing evidence in relation to his requirement for additional accommodation. However, he sought the amendment only at the appellate stage. In such circumstances, the Madras High Court held that the appellate Court in the case was not justified in allowing the amendment at the appellate State more or less permitting the respondent-landlord to seek a review of the judgment rendered by the Rent Controller. Therefore, this decision is of little use to the petitioners in this revision.

( 5 ) THE decision in R. Venkateswarlu v. K. Subrahmanyam, also is of little assistance to the petitioners, as this case turns upon the position as to whether a transferee of the tenancy can continue the appeal by inducting himself in the place of the original tenant. Sambasiva Rao, J. , as he then was, very rightly held that such position cannot be allowed and will be inconsistent with the definition of tenant in section 2 (ix) and also with the provisions of section 10 (2) (ii) of the Act. He further observed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document