Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. During the pendency of this petition in this Court an application was filed being Civil Miscellaneous No. 1408-J of 1970 on behalf of S. Hukam Singh and S. Kartar Singh. In this application it was stated that these applicants have become the owners of the entire property by means of a deed of conveyance dated the 18th of January, 1968 and it was prayed that they may be substituted for the original petitioners. This application came up before me on 10th November, 1970 when I granted it subject to just counsel for the respondent Mr. Marwah appeared and stated that he would like to reply to the application objecting to the right of the applicant to be imp leaded. I consequently directed by my order of the same date that this Miscellaneous application be put up along with the main case and they will be heard together. Reply was filed by the respondent in which it was stated that the application for substitution of the applicants does not lie. It was also stated that the revision petition itself had become infructuous as the original petitioners are no longer landlords and the applicants cannot be substituted in place of the present petitioners. I shall have occasions to say something about this petition later on in my judgment.

15. Mr. Marwah had contended that it was not open to the courts below to have come to this conclusion a this finding that he was a tenant by conduct was beyond the pleadings. This argument had been addressed by Mr. Marwah on the assumptions that even if I was to take a vie different from that of the lower appellate court on the question of the deposit of rent it was open to him to argue and support the judgment of the lower court on a point which had been decided against him namely of tenancy.

17. As regard the objection raised by Mr. Marwah to the application that applicants in C.M. No. 1408-J of 1970 be imp leaded, I find that there is no force in it. If the contention of Mr. Marwah is that ......... because of conveyance the applicants alone are entitled to maintain the present revision petition, then no objection can be taken if permission is given to them to be imp leaded to the present petition. If, on the other hand, a was contended by Mr. Marwah that the assignment had not taken place even then, the original petitioners are on record and are competent to maintain the petition. It is laid down in Sukhdip Singh v. Arjan Singh, that the person acquiring the interest of a party to legal proceedings may continue the same but it does not by itself incapacitate the original party from continuing the proceedings and the former is bound and can benefit by the steps taken by the latter. Thus the original petitioners can maintain the present petition even if they had assigned their full rights to the applicants in C.M. No. 1408-J of 1970.

18. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Ramchander Narsey and Co. v. Wamanrao V. Shenoy 1969 Ren Cr 398 : (AIR 19690 Nsc 72) that if a suit have been validly instituted the same cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that the original landlord had assigned his rights to a subsequent transferee. Their Lordships have held that once a suit have been validly instituted, a decree must necessarily follow unless the law prescribes otherwise. The argument that a arrears of rent were due to the previous landlord and by assigning they became mere debt and therefore would not furnish a cause of action subsequently was not accepted by their Lordships. In that case they distinguished the decision of which was cited by Mr. Marwah. Mr. Marwah in this connection referred me to the authority of Madan Lal v. Harkishah Lal, (1966) 68 Pun Lr 14 and contended that after the transfer was made by the original landlord the viction proceedings could not have been continued. Assuming that this authority lays down the law correctly, the present application in C. M. 1408-J of 1970 has been filed to serve this very purpose. In this very authority it has been observed that no application was made by the transferor landlord to implead the transferee or by the transferee to be imp leaded a party in these proceedings. In the absence of such an application, his Lordship held that the eviction proceedings could not be continued.