Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for plaintiff respondent No. 1 who stated that as pure legal question was involved hence revision might finally be decided.

2. This revision is directed against order dated 29.1.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/J.S.C.C. Ghaziabad in O.S. No. 11 of 1996, Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta v. Modi Sugar Mills and on others. Through the impugned order application of the applicant to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit on the ground that B.I.F.R. had transferred the property in dispute to it has been rejected. The suit has been filed by plaintiff respondent No. 1, Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Modi Sugar Mills and Modi spinning and weaving mills for their eviction. In has been stated in the plaint that defendant No. 1 was granted lease of the property in dispute admeasuring 21 bigha 12 biswa for 99 years through lease deed dated 1.10.1945 and that defendant No. 1 had sub let the property in dispute to defendant No. 2. The Court below held that applicant was sub tenant and in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant, sub tenant was not necessary party. It was also held that application was filed very late.

3. In the plaint it was alleged that lease was granted in the year 1945 to defendant No. 1 who had sub let the same to defendant No. 2.

It is not a case of sub tenancy created by the tenant. It is a case of transfer of lease hold right by operation of law and under order of Court. Ordinarily a sub tenant inducted by the tenant is not a necessary party in a suit for eviction by landlord against the chief tenant for the reason that if the right of the chief tenant comes to an end sub tenancy also automatically comes to an end. However, if the sub tenancy is not illegal, it is of the entire lease property and the ground of eviction is such which may be defended by the sub tenant or which may be remedied by the sub tenant then sub tenant is proper party in the suit. To illustrate if under the lease deed eviction is permissible only on the ground of default in payment of rent and eviction is sought under that clause, tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 114 T.P. Act according to which he may save his eviction by depositing the entire arrears of rent and cost etc. on the first date of hearing. Such deposit may be made by the legal sub tenant also. Similarly, if under the lease deed eviction is not provided until expiry of period of lease, valid sub tenant particularly of the entire property can argue the said point in the suit. Thirdly, if under the lease deed eviction is permissible on certain grounds/defaults, a sub lessee particularly of the entire lease property can argue that no condition of the lease deed has been violated. Accordingly, it cannot be said that under no circumstances a legal sub lessee particularly if the sub lease is of the entire property is neither a necessary nor proper party in a suit for eviction by the landlord against chief tenant.

4. At this stage reference may be made to the Supreme Court authority in Shyam Babu v. D.J., AIR 1984 SC 1399, wherein it has been held that under U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) comparative hardship of a sub tenant who has been inducted with the consent of the landlord is to be considered in Release application filed by landlord under Section 21 of the Act.

5. The question of impleadment of a transferree pendente lite is squarely covered by Section 52 T.P. Act order I Rule 10 C.P.C. and order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act states that if a suit is pending in respect of a property then “property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit”. In the instant case defendants of the suit have not transferred the property to the applicant. It is the order of B.I.F.R. under an Act of the Parliament through which applicant has acquire