Impleadment does not provide any relief.

Both the above Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decretal orders dated 4.12.2003 respectively made in C.M.P.Nos. 657 of 2002 and 283 of 2002 in R.C.A.No.145 of 1997 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both and perused the materials placed on record.

3. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petitions having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the second respondent herein, the landlady has filed the R.C.O.P.No.2467 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller (The Court of Small Causes) Madras under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the petitioner herein and six others for eviction and for a direction to the respondents to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition property to the petitioner on two grounds i.e. (i) wilful default and (ii) subletting the petition mentioned property; that the said R.C.O.P. was dismissed, against which the landlady has preferred R.C.A.No.145 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (The Court of Small Causes) Madras; that pending the said R.C.A., the 2nd respondent herein, the landlady, has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.283 of 2002 praying to implead Tmt.G.P.Savithiri, as party to the above appeal; that the said Savithiri who is a third party to the proceeding has also filed a petition to implead herself as second appellant in the above R.C.A.; that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has ultimately allowed the said petitions. It is only testifying the validity of the said fair and decretal order the petitioner herein has come forward to file both the above Civil Revision Petitions on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revisions.

4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions would submit that the R.C.O.P. filed by the landlady has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, against which she preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.145 of 1997; that pending R.C.A. two Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed one by the landlady and the other by a third party viz. G.P.Savithiri praying to implead the said G.P.Savithiri as a party to the R.C.A. proceeding; that both the above Miscellaneous Petitions have been allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and hence both the above Civil Revision Petitions.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the Rent Controller has observed that the relationship of landlady-tenant is not in existence; that the tenant is one of the co-owners, based on which a Will has been probated in favour of Kanakavalli; that grant of probate is not the source of title; that Partition suit filed by the brothers of the so called landlady is pending; that she says that she sold the property to one Savithiri the wife of her another brother on 1.10.2001 based on an agreement of sale dated 17.9.1986, thus after a lapse of 15 years making it known to the world that the brother’s wife purchased the petition property.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that even after the sale an initial cause of action arising that the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition is inducted into possession, deposited the rent into Court as one of the co-owners; that there was no clause to the effect that the litigation is pending and in spite of it the land has been sold; that the R.C.O.P. is of the year 1993; that according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in Mrs.DHANLAXSMI G.SHAH v. Miss.SUSHILA SHIV PRASAD MASURAKIR AND OTHERS (1980)I SUPREME COURT CASES 596)

”If at all any right is reserved in favour of the first defendant it should be spelt out from the sale deed which has not been produced”.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 would dwell on the facts as it has been put fort