The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 146 and Order 22 CPC in the context of impleadment of transferee landlords and their right to continue eviction proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla on 21.11.2015, whereby, he allowed the application of the respondents No. 5 and 6 for impleading them as parties to the case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the eviction proceedings against the petitioner is pending before the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla. It was respondents No. 1 to 4, who had initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and further fixation of fair rent as per law.

3. Thereafter, an application was moved by respondents No. 5 and 6 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for the impleadment in these proceedings on the allegations that they were subsequent purchasers of the premises in question. Though this application was resisted by the petitioner, however, the same came to be allowed as aforesaid.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed instant petition mainly on the ground that there was no due assignment of the alleged arrears of rent in favour of the subsequent purchasers, therefore, there was no question of their being impleaded as party. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

5. At the outset, it would be noticed that though transferee landlords sought impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, however, this Court is of the view that the application ought to have been moved under Section 146 or under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to treat this application as having been moved under Section 146 read with Order 22 CPC.

6. The issue whether a transferee landlord can be impleaded as a party came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Brijesh Kumar Sood and Anr. v. Brig. K.K. Sood (Retd.) and Anr, Latest HLJ 2012 (HP) 507 , wherein it was observed as under:-

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, subletting 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.

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 applicat