Request of purchaser allowed by the Appellate Authority.

The tenant in H. R. C. No. 2963 of 1977, XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That application was filed by one Kannappan against the petitioner herein under section 10 (i) (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for an order of eviction on the ground that the petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 170 for the period from 1st March, 1975 to 31st August, 1977. The petitioner resisted that application contending that the rents for the period March to July, 1975 was paid and received by Kannappan, but that receipts were not issued and when the rent for the month of August, 1975 was tendered by the petitioner, Kannappan refused to receive the same and thereafter, the rents had been sent by the petitioner regularly by money order from August, 1975 upto date and those money orders had been unlawfully refused to be received by Kannappan. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that he did not commit any wilful default in the payment of rents.

2. Before the Rent Controller (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, Kannappan examined himself as P. W. 1 and relied on Exhibits P-1 to P-3, while the petitioner examined himself as R. W. 1 and filed Exhibits R-1 and R-2 in support of his case. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Rent Controller, by his order dated 15th February, 1979 held that the version as well as the explanation of the petitioner cannot be accepted as a proper ground for condoning the non-payment of rents as claimed by Kannappan and that the petitioner has wilfully defaulted to pay the rents for the period in question. On these conclusions, an order for eviction was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in H. R. A. No. 704 of 1979 to the Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras on 17th April, 1979. To that appeal, Kannappan, who initiated the proceedings for eviction against the petitioner herein was impleaded as the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent herein filed on 14th April, 1980 M. P. No, 929 of 1980 purporting to be under section 27 of the Act, to bring himself on record as the respondent in H. R. A. No. 704 of 1979, on the ground that under a sale deed dated 12th March, 1980 he had purchased the property from Kannappan and that the fact of such purchase had also been duly communicated to the petitioner. The respondent further stated that the order already obtained by his vendor Kannappan would also enure for his benefit. This application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision in the Act to bring a third party purchaser on record and that the purchaser cannot take advantage of the order of eviction obtained by his vendor on the ground of wilful default. The petitioner also raised a further objection that the respondent had no right to continue the proceedings and that the appeal in H. R. A. No. 704 of 1979 should be dismissed. The Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras relying upon the decision of this Court in Thiruvengadaswamy Naidu v. Nachiappan1held that the petition to bring on record the respondent herein as the second respondent in the appeal is maintainable and that the respondent is also entitled to get himself impleaded as a party to the appeal. On this conclusion, M. P. No. 929 of 1980 filed by the respondent herein was allowed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.

3. The principal objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules framed there under to enable an Appellate Authority to implead parties to proceedings pending before it on the ground of devolution of interest during the pendency of the app