Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This petition is directed against the order dated 9.8.2005, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.2, Shimla in case No. 51/2 of 2001.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as transferor landlord) filed petition under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity sake) against the petitioners/tenants (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenants’ for convenience sake) on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, tenant has acquired premises which are reasonably sufficient for him and his family requirement, sub-letting and lastly on the ground that premises under the occupation of tenant No.1, namely, Brijesh Kumar Sood are bona fide required for carrying out construction of the building and rebuilding. Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘transferee landlord’) moved an application under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as party in the main petition, i.e. 51/2 of 2001. According to the averments contained in the application preferred by transferee landlord, he has purchased the premises in question vide sale deed dated 25.9.2004. According to him, he has stepped into the shoes of transferor landlord. The tenant filed reply to the same. The Rent Controller vide order dated 9.8.2005, allowed the application preferred under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The tenants preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 8.5.2007. Thereafter, tenants approached this Court. This Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 19.10.2010. However, while dismissing the petition, the Court had observed that the tenants had right to file revision against the impugned order dated 9.8.2005. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been preferred against the order dated 9.8.2005.

3. Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal has strenuously argued that the application preferred under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable before the learned Rent Controller. He further contended that the transferee landlord has no locus standi to be impleaded as party. He further contended that the rights of the transferor landlord had extinguished after the sale of the suit premises to the transferee landlord on 25.9.2004. He lastly contended that the learned Rent Controller ought to have dismissed the petition since the same could not be continued on behalf of transferee landlord.

4. Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Satyen Vaidya have supported the impugned order. Mr. Satyen Vaidya has strenuously argued that the transferee landlord could continue the proceedings on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, the tenant has acquired premises which are reasonably sufficient for him and his family requirements and sub-letting.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

6. In the instant case, the transferee landlord has moved an application under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court is of the view that the transferee landlord should have moved application under section 146 or under order 22 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in the interest of justice, an application under order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by transferee landlord will be deemed to have been moved under section 146 or under order 22 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh versus Jai Prakash University and others, (2001) 6 SCC 534 have held that seeking leave to continue suit after devolution of any interest during pendency of a suit is not obligatory. Their Lordships have further held that order 22 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is based on principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end m