The judgment establishes that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order 1 Rule 10(2), are not applicable to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

The civil revision petitioner/appellant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order passed in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District (learned appellate authority) in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead the Executive Officer, Incorporated and uncorporated Devasams, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District.

2. The learned appellate authority namely the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, while passing orders in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 has come to the conclusion that the proposed party namely the second respondent Devasom Board is not necessary or a proper party to the appeal proceedings and resultantly, dismissed the application.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned appellate authority, has dismissed the I.A. No. 10 of 2080 filed by the revision petitioner in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, without considering the merits of the application and further that, he is proceeding with the main appeal and moreover, P.W.1 has admitted before the learned Rent Controller that the site of the building No. 1-70C is owned by the respondent/petitioner and the Devasom Board and in the absence of the Devasom Board as necessary party in the petition, the matter cannot be proceeded with in an effective way and that the FCDE denoted in the plan belongs to Devasom Board and that the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 43 of 1999 has been filed without knowing the exact area of the petitioned property and the boundaries thereto and that the southern half which belongs to Devasom Board has been suppressed and the southern half of the suit property has been wrongly stated as 'Road' and that for the southern half, Devasom Board is collecting rent from the revision petitioner/appellant and therefore, the Devasom Board is mandatorily an essential party and the same cannot be dispensed with on any score and that these aspects have not been appreciated by the learned appellate authority namely the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, while passing orders in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 in a proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition to promote substantial cause of justice.

4. It is to be noted that the revision petitioner/petitioner/appellant in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 has inter alia stated that the southern half of the petition property belongs to the Devasom Board has been suppressed and that the southern boundaries of the suit property has been wrongly mentioned as 'Road' and that the property of the Devasom Board has been purposely omitted to merge the area of Devasom Board and further that, the Devasom Board is collecting rent for the southern half from the revision petitioner and that therefore, Devasom Board ought to be added as an additional appellant/respondent.

5. In the counter filed by the respondent/petitioner, it is inter alia stated that 'building portions comes within the patta land of this landlord/petitioner in the main O.P and vacant area abutting on the south belongs to Devaswom Board and that the building in issue exclusively falls within the patta land of the landlord and that the Devaswom is not necessary party and a similar application has been filed to implead Devaswom by a tenant, a lessee of adjoining shop in R.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1992 which has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Nagercoil and the same has been confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1093 of 2007 holding that the Devaswom Board is unnecessary party and that the main eviction proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1992 is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and therefore, prays for the dismissal of the application.

6. It is to be borne in mi