1. These two revision petitions were filed against the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority refusing to implead the revision petitioner as petitioner in the Rent Control Original Petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the Rent Control proceedings for eviction of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground of wilful default and submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, they have sold the property to the revision petitioner and therefore, the application was filed by respondents 1 and 2 to implead the revision petitioner as third party to the proceedings and that was allowed by the Rent Controller and reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and hence, the proposed party has filed the revision petitions.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has purchased the property and is entitled to prosecute the case filed by respondents 1 and 2 and this court also held in the decision in RENGANATHAN v. PANDURANGAN AND ANOTHER (1995-2-LW 160) that the subsequent purchaser can be impleaded to prosecute the petition filed by the original landlords and without considering