Purchaser of the premises/respondent entitled to initiate proceeding for restoration of petition.

This revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant in H.R.C.O.P. No.4 of 1990, on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tindivanam.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the Rent Controller allowed the application of the first respondent herein, to get himself impleaded in the proceeding and allowed him to continue the proceeding already initiated by the previous landlord.

3. The original petition was filed by the previous owner as H.R.C.O.P. No.4 of 1990. Pending proceeding, the respondent No.1 purchased the property as per sale deeds dated 212. 1991 and 212. 1991. Thereafter, an application was filed by the very same respondent to get himself impleaded as a respondent in the proceeding, which he subsequently withdraw. Later he filed the present application, namely, LA. No.5 of 1994, for getting himself impleaded as additional petitioner in the R.C.O.P. In the meanwhile, the original petition itself was dismissed for default, and hence, the first respondent wanted himself to be permitted to continue the original petition, or to initiate proceedings for restoration of the original petition.

4. By virtue of the impugned order, the Rent Controller allowed the first respondent’s request though objected to by the petitoner herein.

5. The main ground of attack by the petitioner is that once the eviction petition is not pending before the Rent Controller, there is no proceedings in which the first respondent can get himself impleaded or substituted or permitted to continue the proceedings. According to him, being a tribunal, the powers are restricted as provided under the Rent Control Act, and hence the order of the Rent Controller is without jurisdiction.

6. Being a revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, my powers are limited, i.e., this Court has only to see whether the jurisdiction exercised by the Rent Controller is within his limits.

7. It is true that the Act does not provide for the impleading of purchaser in a pending proceeding or in a proceeding which is dismissed for default. But it is settled law by this Court that in a pending proceeding, a pure laser can be impleaded and he can continue the proceedings.

8. In N. Subbiah v. M.Seshagiri Rao, 92 L.W. 303, Ramaprasada Rao, C.J., held thus: "The purchaser of a property, in the course of proceedings under the Rent Control Act, can be brough: on record for the purpose of continuing the application filed by the quondam owner, namely, his vendor, and the mere fact that the tenant has, at the instance of the quondam owner, attorned to the purchaser, who wishes to bring himself on record in those proceedings, would not be a material interdict which would prevent the subsequent purchaser from being brought on record for continuing the proceedings either in the original stage or at the execution stage."

9. In V.Shanmugham and another v. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited, (1991)1 L.W. 349, Venkataswami, J. (as he then was), held thus:

"The purchaser of a building during the pendency of a revision petition in the High Court against an eviction order is entitled to execute the decree for eviction notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser has not been brought on record before the final disposal of the revision petition."

In that case, the learned Judge was considering the provisions of 0.21, Rule 16 and Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code, and being an executing court, the learned Judge held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply. But, evert then, the learned Judge discussed the entire case-law and held that the purchaser can continue the proceeding already initiated by earlier landlord.

10. The powers of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority are conferred by the Statute. But the question is, whether, apart from the powers that have been granted, the Tribunals constituted have got incidental powers which are not strictly provided under the Statute, but which should be nec