The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Rent Control Proceedings.

1. Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 18/12/2006 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1416 of 2005 in Rent Control Original Petition No.1 of 2005 by the Rent Controller, Srivilliputhur.

2. The revision petitioner/proposed second respondent has filed Interlocutory Application No.1416 of 2005 in Rent Control Original Petition No.1 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to implead him as second respondent in Rent Control Original Petition No.1 of 2005, wherein the present revision respondents have been shown as the respondents.

3. It is stated in the petition that the demised premise is originally belonged to the second respondent and he leased out the same to the first respondent/petitioner. The second respondent has desire to sell his demised premises to the petitioner and the sale amount has been fixed at Rs.2,63,000/- and on 20/6/2004, a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid as advance to the second respondent and to that effect, a sale agreement has come into existence and to that effect, a sale agreement has come into existence and the petitioner has purchased the demised premises on 16/9/2004 and since purchase he has become the owner of the demised premises. The respondents 1 and 2 have created a bogus sale agreement in favour of the first respondent, suppressing the sale made in favour of the petitioner on 16/9/2004. The first respondent has filed the Original Suit No.144 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, wherein the present petitioner has filed an application in Interlocutory Application No.27 of 2005, so as to implead him. The first respondent has filed Rent Control Original Petition No.1 of 2005. Since the petitioner has purchased the demised premises, he is also a necessary party. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

4. It has been contended on the side of the first respondent that the demised premises is originally belonged to the second respondent and the second respondent has let out the same in favour of the father of the first respondent on 17/8/2006. On 1/4/2006, a rental agreement has come into existence. The second respondent has approached the father of the first respondent to sell the demised premises and accordingly, an agreement of sale has come into existence on 2/8/2004. The second respondent has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the first respondent has filed Original Suit No.144 of 2004. The petitioner is not at all a necessary party to Rent Control Original Petition No.1 of 2005 and further, the present petition is not legally maintainable. Therefore, the same deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the divergent contentions raised by either party, the Court below has dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the present petition is not maintainable in Rent Control Proceedings.

6. Before considering the rival arguments advanced by either side, it would be more useful to look into the maintainability of the present petition. It is an admitted fact that the present petition has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to implead the revision petitioner as the second respondent in Rent Control Original Petition No.1 of 2005. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed Rent Control Original Petition No.1 of 2005 under Section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960. The Court below without considering the merits and demerits of the petition has simply dismissed the same on the ground that Order 1 Rule 10 (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings.

7. In order to analyse the above legal position, it would be apropos to look into the following decisions.

8. The first and foremost decision is reported in 1989 – 2 LAW WEEKLY – 412 (S.V.CHIDAMBARA PILLAI Vs. S.N.V.R.N.SUBRAMANIAM CHETTIAR & ORS), wherein this Court has held that

.