ORDER: The respondent in R.C.O.P. Nos.15 of 1993 and 18 of 1993 is the petitioner in these civil revision petitions. The first respondent in the C.R.P.No.3525 of 2000 filed R.C.O.P. No.15 of 1993 against the Civil Revision Petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Villupuram for fixation of fair rent. The first respondent in the C.R.P.No.3531 of 2000 filed R.C.O.P. No.18 of 1993 for an order of eviction under Sec.10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. Pending the above petitions the civil revision petitioner sold the property in question to the respondents 2 to 7 in R.C.O.P. No.15 of 1993 on 3.3.1997. An ex parte order of eviction was passed on 5.3.1997. The first respondent filed I.A. No.37 of 2000 seeking for a direction to implead the purchasers namely the respondents 2 to 7 in the civil revision petition in R.C.O.P. under O.1, Rule 10 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. The said I.A. was allowed on 21.8.2000. The respondents in the civil revision petition also filed I.A. No.38 of 2000 under O.6, Rule 17 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. for a direction to amend the petition as set out in the petition in detail in order to determine the real controversy between the parties. The said petition was allowed on 7.9.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed C.R.P. No.3531 of 2000. The respondents in the civil revision petition also filed I.A. No.36 of 2000 under O.6, Rule 17 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. to amend the petition in R.C.O.P. No.15 of 1993. The said petition was also allowed by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 7.9.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, C.R.P. No.3525 of 2000 has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in both the petitions, the details of the amendment has been furnished by the respondents herein. The amendment has been sought on the ground of new cause of action. The learned counsel submitted that R.C.O.P. No.18 of 1993 has been filed for eviction on the ground of owners occupation. Originally, the petition was filed by one V.Nandagopal Chettiar alone on the ground of owners occupation. The said Nandagopal Chettiar sold the property under two registered sale deeds to Thiru R.S.Mani and Thiru N.K.M. Jiyavudeen on 3.3.1997. The cause of action for eviction being owners occupation which is in the nature of a personal relief cannot be a ground for the subsequent purchasers to agitate the very same petition. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller was not right in allowing the applications in I.A. Nos.36 and 38 of 2000. For the said submission the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Srinivasan and another v. Santhana Selvaraj and another, (2000)3 C.T.C. 537 to contend that subsequent purchaser is not entitled to continue claim for eviction on the ground of owners occupation which is "peculiarly person to erstwhile landlords". Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions on the other hand would contend, that when the application impleading the respondents 2 to 7 as petitioners in the R.C.O.P. was filed, he has specifically stated in the affidavit in support of the said petition that the respondent in R.C.O.P. has denied the title of the landlord and the said denial was nothing but a mala fide one and on the ground the respondent was liable to be evicted from the premises. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the eviction is only on the ground of owners occupation but also on the ground of denial of title. This Court in the judgment in G.Jayapandian v. P.C. Manickam and another, (1996)1 M.L.J. 350 has held that an amendment to a pleading is necessitated to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also to explain the vagueness, if any, in the pleadings. To decide the real matter in controversy, parties are permitted to amend the pleadings. In certain circumstances, the existing pleading become insuffic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document