ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2023 passed in I.A. No.719 of 2022 in O.S. No.1313 of 2022 (previously numbered as O.S. No.1105 of 2012) by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri, as being illegal and contrary to settled principles of law.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant/tenant in the suit filed by the respondent No.1/owner, for recovery of arrears of rents and eviction of the petitioner herein from the suit scheduled property.

4. The brief facts of the case are, that the respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner herein had entered into an oral tenancy in the year 1995, to let out the suit scheduled property for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The said monthly rent stood enhanced to Rs.10,000/- in the year 2011.

5. Since, the petitioner herein was in chronic default in payment of rent, the respondent No.1 in the month of June 2011, had demanded the petitioner herein to clear the arrears of rent within a period of six months. As the default in payment of rent continued and that apart the respondent No.1 had a bona fide requirement of the suit schedule property, he issued a notice dated 04.04.2012, demanding the petitioner herein to vacate the suit schedule property and clear the arrears of rent.

6. As the petitioner herein failed to vacate the suit scheduled property and clear the arrears of rent, respondent No.1 herein filed suit bearing O.S.No.1313 of 2022 (previously numbered as 1105 of 2012).

7. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent No.1 herein had sold the suit scheduled property to respondent No.2 herein vide sale deed Doc. No.8697 dated 03.11.2014. Subsequently, respondent No.2 herein had filed I.A.No.186 of 2018 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), seeking to implead himself as “plaintiff No.2” in the suit, with a consequential relief to direct the petitioner herein to handover the physical possession of the suit scheduled property to the respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner herein resisted the said application by filing a counter. The Court below on hearing both sides, allowed I.A. No.186 of 2018 vide order dated 20.09.2018 observing that impleading respondent No.2 herein as plaintiff No.2 in the suit was necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and the said order has attained finality in absence of any challenge thereto. Thus, the suit proceeded with the respondent No.2 herein as plaintiff No.2.

8. When the matter stood posted for the cross-examination of PW-1, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 of the Code, seeking rejection of plaint contending that the cause of action in the suit does not survive as the suit scheduled property was alienated in favour of the respondent No.2 herein. The respondents herein had filed their counter opposing the said application.

9. The court below on hearing both sides dismissed the said application, while observing that the transaction being pendent lite was subject to the outcome of the suit; further the rights of the predecessor in title shall accrue to the subsequent purchaser of a property. The court below had rejected the contention of the petitioner herein that cause of action in suit does not survive, as under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the original owner was entitled to claim arrears of rents till the title is passed onto the subsequent purchaser, and the subsequent purchaser could seek arrears of rent along with eviction from the day title is vested in him. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

10. The counsel for the petitioner contends the court below had failed to consider, that the cause of action against respondent No.1 herein does not survive, since the suit scheduled property was sold by him and the title has passed to the respondent No.2; and that so far