Civil revision petition allowed.

Tenants in R.C.O.P.No.71 of 1987, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif’s Court), Tuticorin, are the revision petitioners. First respondent herein filed the above eviction petition on the ground that the tenants have defaulted in payment of rent and the said default is wilful. It is also alleged that the building requires demolition and reconstruction. Eviction was also sought on various other grounds including acts of waste, acts of nuisance, claiming permanent tenancy without any bona fides etc. The last three grounds referred to above were found against the landlord even by Rent Controller, and the matter was not agitated before the Appellate Authority also on those grounds. The only ground for eviction which found favour with the Rent Controller was that the revision petitioners have committed wilful default and that the building requires demolition and reconstruction. The finding was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is that judgment, which is sought to be revised by the revision petitioners.

2. If this is the only ground that is agitated before this Court, being a finding of fact, it will not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with those findings. But, when the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, respondents 2 and 3 in this revision got themselves impleaded as purchasers of the property as per sale deed dated 25. 1991. In this revision, the main point urged was, what is the effect of a subsequent sale, and how far respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to get possession of the building when the Rent Control Petition itself is pending consideration by this Court, and the Order of eviction has not become final.

3. It is settled law that in proceedings under the Rent Control Act, subsequent events also will have to be taken into consideration, and that is why the Appellate Authority has allowed respondents 2 and 3 also to be impleaded.

4. As stated earlier, the grounds on which eviction is now sought is, default in payment of rent and also requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction. The arrears of rent that is made mention of in the cause of action for the petition is from 11. 1986 till the date of petition which was filed on 26. 1987.

5. Even though revision petitioners contended that they were not aware of the purchase by respondents 2 and 3 from. 1st respondent, the previous owner, that contention has been found against by the Authorities below, on the basis of evidence before it. It is seen that the revision petitioners are aware of the sale, and in fact, even the first respondent’s father did inform the tenants about the sale and also requested them to vacate the premises. It is also seen from the records that there are other proceedings also initiated by first respondent. Under the above circumstances, the findings of the Authorities below that the tenants were not aware of the sale, and their contention that they were not liable to pay rent to the first respondent cannot be accepted, are only to be confirmed. Whether those findings will enable the purchasers to get eviction, is to be considered.

6. Even though the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act applies in respect of the building in question, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act will have no application in respect of those matters for which no, provision has been made under the Rent Control Act. The right of ownership, when that ownership vests, the right to collect rent on the basis of sale, are all provided only under the Transfer of Property Act, and only after the contract of landlord and tenant is entered into, the provisions of the Rent Control can be applied. What is the effect of a transfer from a previous owner to a purchaser? For this, no provision is made under the Rent Control Act. So far as the Rent Control Act is concerned, it has got an overriding effect as against any law or contract in so far as the right to eviction, righ