In a suit for eviction filed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the bona fide necessity of the original landlord is not available to the subsequent purchaser.

1. - Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, at the behest of defendant-petitioner, is given to impugned order dated 22nd of April 2015 (Annex.5) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (for short, 'learned Court below'). The learned Court below, by the order impugned, has allowed the application of second respondent, Vimal Kumar, under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as plaintiff in a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit laid by his predecessor in title of the suit property.

2. The facts, in brief, are that first respondent, original landlord, instituted a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit against the petitioner-tenant after serving notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'Act of 1882') terminating his tenancy. The petitioner filed written statement denying averments contained in the plaint. During pendency of the suit, second respondent laid an application under Order 22, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for allowing him to continue the suit precisely on the ground that he has purchased the shop in question from first respondent, Kamal Kumar, by registered sale-deed dated 27th November, 2013. The aforesaid application is contested by the petitioner by filing reply. After hearing rival submissions, learned Court below allowed the application by the impugned order. In the writ petition, the impugned order is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Court below has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is also averred that reasonable and bona fide necessity of the original landlord, Kamal Kumar, has come to an end, and therefore, the respondent-applicant cannot be allowed to continue proceedings of suit on the strength of grounds set out in the suit for eviction. A further ground is urged that the respondent-plaintiff has not divulged requisite information about sale transaction to the petitioner, and therefore, the learned Court below has committed an error apparent on the face of record in allowing the application.

3. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the grounds for eviction set out in the plaint by the original plaintiff, first respondent, are not available to the applicant, second respondent, and therefore, the learned Court below has committed serious jurisdictional error in allowing the application under Order 22, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel would contend that bona fide requirements of the original plaintiff, first respondent, pleaded in the plaint are not available to second respondent, and therefore, his impleadment as plaintiff to the suit is contrary to the mandate of Order 22, Rule 10 CPC. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that order impugned suffers from vice of an error apparent on the face of record, therefore, it is vulnerable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on following legal precedents:

* Shantilal Thakordas & Ors. v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala [AIR SC 2358(1)]

* Sheikh Jehangir v. Smt. S. Kaushilyabai & Ors. [1987 (Supp) SCC 630]

* WG. Com. H.K.Lal v. Dr. Satish Chand & Ors. [1996 WLC (Raj.) UC 3)]

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Court below has considered lis involved in the suit and thereafter, taking note of the fact of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest about suit property, during the pendency of a suit in favour of respondent-applicant, has allowed the applicant to be impleaded as plaintiff, which is a just order and calls for no interference. Mr. Bhaiya would contend that ground for eviction namely reasonable and bona fide necessity is having no significance in the present suit inasmuch as it is a suit based on the Act of 1882, and therefore, the discretion