The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during its pendency.

ORDER :

Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

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 applicants 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 & Anr. Vs. Raghunath Prashad, reported in 1981 (2) RCR 405.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioners-applicants submitted that the court below rightly rejected the application filed by the non-applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Rent Tribunal has power to adopt its own procedure. Learned counsel further submitted that it is wrong to say that the cause of action does not survive. The status of the non-applicant as tenant in the premises in question is not disputed and the agreement does not confer any legal right/title in view of provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The eviction petition was filed on the ground of material alteration.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the non-petitioners-applicants has placed reliance upon following judgments:-

1. Sharadamma Vs. Mohammed Pyrejan & Ors., reported in AIR 2015 SC 3747;

2. Roshan Lal Devi Dass & Ors. Vs. Man Mohan Chopra, C.R. No. 450-D of 1963, decided by Delhi High Court on 21.12.1970;

3. Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 206;

4. Crest Hotel Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Superintendent of Stamps & Anr., reported in AIR 1994 Bombay 228;

5. Jaskirat Datwani Vs. Vidyavati & Ors., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 647; and

6. Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 534.

6. In the case of Hasmati Rai & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the application filed by t