***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. –

This common order shall dispose of the above-mentioned revision petitions, as both arise out of separate eviction proceedings instituted by the same landlord, Balwant Singh, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and involve an identical question of law concerning the effect of transfer of the demised property during the pendency of the eviction petitions.

2. The petitioners-tenants have assailed the orders dated 01.04.2022 and 15.10.2022, respectively, passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby applications moved by the landlord under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) were allowed and Sarabjit Singh, son of the original landlord, was permitted to be impleaded as petitioner No. 2 in the respective eviction petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the original landlord transferred the property in favour of his son during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. Having divested himself of his rights in the demised premises, the original landlord ceased to have any subsisting cause of action to pursue the eviction petitions. It is argued that the ground of eviction was founded upon the personal requirement of the original landlord and his divorced daughter, and such a ground could not be continued by the transferee merely on the strength of the transfer of ownership. It is, accordingly, contended that the impugned orders permitting impleadment of the transferee are legally unsustainable.

4. Ld. Counsel for respondent has defended the impugned order.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

6. The question, which arises for consideration, is whether the transfer of the demised property by the original landlord during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, by itself, extinguishes the pending cause of action and precludes the transferee from being impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

7. Order XXII Rule 10 CPC provides that, in cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the proceedings may, with the leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. The provision is intended to enable the adjudication to proceed notwithstanding a change in the interest of a party during the pendency of the litigation. The transferee does not, merely by virtue of such transfer, acquire an unrestricted right to establish a new cause of action; rather, the nature and extent of the right to continue the pending proceedings depend upon the interest devolved and the survival of the cause of action.

8. In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6 SCC 534, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and recognised that a proceeding need not terminate merely because an interest therein has devolved upon another person during its pendency. The provision enables the Court, in an appropriate case, to permit the successor-in-interest to continue the litigation, subject to the nature of the right devolved and the circumstances of the case.

9. The principle, however, does not mean that every cause of action survives a transfer. Where the right to relief is exclusively personal to the transferor and is extinguished by the transfer, the transferee cannot claim continuation merely by relying upon Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. Conversely, where the transfer concerns the very property forming the subject matter of the pending proceedings and the right to pursue the relief survives in the transferee, the transfer does not, by itself, arrest the progress of the litigation.

10. In the present cases, the eviction petitions were instituted by Balwant Singh on the ground that the demised premises were required for the use and occupation of his divorced daughter, who was stated to be dependent upon him. During the pendency of those proceedings, the original landlord transferred the property in favour of his son, Sarabjit Singh, and sought his impleadment on the basis of the transfer and the assignment of the right to continue the pending litigation.

11. The learned Rent Controller noticed that the original ground of eviction had not been sought to be altered by the applications for impleadment. The applications were allowed on the consideration that the transfer had taken place during the pendency of the proceedings, the transferee sought leave to continue the litigation, and no prejudice would be caused to the tenants by his impleadment. The orders further expressly clarified that the observations made therein would not affect the adjudication of the eviction petitions on merits.

12. The contention that the transfer automatically extinguished the cause of action cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. The transfer of the proprietary interest and the subsistence of the statutory ground of eviction are distinct questions. The former may entitle the transferee to seek leave to continue the proceedings, whereas the latter must be determined with reference to the pleadings, the applicable statutory requirements and the evidence on record.

13. At the same time, the impleadment of the transferee does not, by itself, establish that the requirement pleaded in the eviction petitions continues to satisfy the statutory conditions for eviction. Whether the requirement of the divorced daughter is legally sustainable in the circumstances, whether the necessary relationship of dependence is established, and whether the ground pleaded can be pursued in the changed circumstances are matters to be determined by the learned Rent Controller in accordance with law. Those questions cannot be treated as having been concluded merely by allowing the applications under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

14. It is also material that the impugned orders permit the transferee to be impleaded as petitioner No. 2; they do not, at this stage, adjudicate the ultimate entitlement to eviction. The tenants remain entitled to contest the maintainability of the eviction petitions, the legal effect of the transfer, the applicability of the statutory ground invoked, and all other pleas available to them in accordance with law. The grant of leave to continue the proceedings cannot be construed as conferring upon the transferee any substantive right beyond that which law recognises.

15. In these circumstances, no illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out in the impugned orders. The applications for impleadment were procedural in nature, and the learned Rent Controller has left the merits of the eviction claims open for adjudication. The apprehension of the petitioners that impleadment, by itself, forecloses their defence is, therefore, unfounded.

16. Consequently,  both     revision petitions are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the legality of the orders permitting impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. The learned Rent Controller shall independently examine the maintainability of the eviction petitions and the entitlement to the relief claimed, including the effect of the transfer upon the pleaded ground of eviction, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned orders or in the present order touching upon the ultimate merits.

17. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the respective eviction petitions. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

Petitions dismissed.

********