Court allowed dismissal of impleadment application for lack of legal standing, emphasizing that unregistered sub-leases cannot assert rights post-expiration of the main lease.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. This civil revision petition (CRP) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Pitta Ramesh challenging the order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Chodavaram in IA No.30 of 2024 in OS No.162 of 2019, rejecting the IA.

3. The petitioner is the third party/proposed defendant in OS No.162 of 2019. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the plaintiffs in the suit and the 5th respondent is the sole defendant.

4. The plaintiff-respondents filed OS No.162 of 2019 against the defendant for a decree of eviction of the said defendant from the plaint schedule property as also for recovery of an amount of Rs.56,43,996/- towards arrears of rent against him. The plaintiff's case, inter alia, is that the defendant, is the tenant of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are the landlords/lessors. They jointly executed a lease agreement/the lease deed dated 27.01.2015, registered at Registrar's Office, Chodavaram as Document No.261/2015. The lease period came into force with effect from 27.01.2015 upto 26.01.2021, for a period of six years and on expiry of the lease period, the said defendant had to hand over the lease hold premises giving its possession to the plaintiffs. The defendant violated the terms of the lease deed, so, the plaintiffs issued notices which were also replied by the defendant.

5. In OS No.162 of 2019, the petitioner, a third party, filed IA No.30 of 2024 for his impleadment as defendant No.2. He submitted inter alia that the defendant in the suit entered into a sub-lease agreement dated 13.07.2018 with him. He paid the advance amount, also the rent and was in possession of the leased out premises. The sub-lease agreement was in terms of the lease by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. So, his case was that the sublease in petitioner's favour by the tenant-defendant in the suit was in terms of the main lease, the plaintiffs were bound by the same, as the defendant in the suit had the right to sublet. Consequently, in the suit, the petitioner should have been impleaded.

6. The plaintiffs 1 to 4-respondents filed the counter. They opposed the application for impleadment. They raised various pleas. Their main contentions in opposition of application for impleadment were that the contract of lease between the plaintiffs and the defendant expired on 26.01.2021. The alleged sub-lease was neither binding on the plaintiffs nor could survive, even otherwise, after 26.01.2021 on which date main lease came to an end. The petitioner had no locus to seek his impleadment.

7. The defendant-respondent No.5 also filed the counter, not disputing the execution of the sub-lease by him with the petitioner on 13.07.2018 but denying the other material allegations. He submitted that the petitioner was in no way concerned with the suit and the application for impleadment was not maintainable which was liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned Court of IX Additional District Judge (FTC) rejected the application vide order dated 20.11.2024. It was held that the original sub-lease dated 13.07.2018 was not filed before the Court. Only a Xerox copy was filed which showed that the sub-lease was an unregistered document. Under the law, if the lease for a period of two and half years was liable to be registered, and it being unregistered and Xerox copy,