ORDER
Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The unsuccessful tenants in R.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1983 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes),Madras, and in the appeals in R.C.A. No. 141 and 172 of 1985 on the file of the appellate authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, are the petitioners in these revision petitions. The respondents are the landlords.
2. The respondents, landlords, filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1983, for eviction of the tenants on the grounds of sub-letting and owner’s occupation. They contended that both of them purchased the building on 25-4-1981 under two separate sale deeds and the first petitioner was a tenant at that time. He had attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondents and subsequently the first petitioner has sublet the premises to one Mrs. Khursheed Begum, who was added as the 3rd respondent, in the eviction petition, without the written permission of the respondents herein. It is their further case that the respondents do not own any house in the City of Madras, that both of them require the petition-premises for their own use and occupation and that their requirement is bona fide.
3. The petitioners herein resisted the application contending that a single petition filed by the respondents is not maintainable. According to them the second petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner herein and that the first petitioner has not parted possession in favour of the second petitioner. It is their further case that the previous owner had given him consent for subletting the premises in favour of the said Khursheed Begum. On the other hand, the said Khursheed Begum filed a counter statement stating that she is a direct tenant under the respondents herein According to them, the requirement of the landlords is not bona fide. By way of additional counter statement, the first petitioner has stated that during the pendency of the eviction petition, the said Khursheed Begum had vacated and surrendered possession and that thereafter the portion occupied by Khursheed Begum has been let out to oem Abdul Salam.
4. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the eviction petition is maintainable and that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. However, he held that as the said Khursheed Begum had already vacated the premises, the petition against her has become infructuous, and, therefore, he negatived the case of subletting. As against the said findings, the landlords filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 172 of 1985 and the first petitioner herein preferred the appeal in R.C.A. No. 141 of 1985. The appellate authority, after elaborately considering the evidence, confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of requirement of the landlords for their own use and occupation, but on the question of subletting, it reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and held that the petitioners are liable to be evicted on that ground also. Consequently, the appellate authority allowed the appeal in R.C.A. No. 172 of 1985 and dismissed the appeal in R.C.A. No. 141 of 1985 by a common judgment. As against this decision, the tenants have preferred the above two civil revision petitions.
5. The tenants, who are the petitioners in these revision petitions, filed C.M.P.Nos. 17416 and 17417 of 1987 in C.R.P.Nos. 3415 and 3416 of 1985 respectively praying for terminating the entire eviction proceedings filed by the landlords on the ground that the petition property has been sold away by the landlords in favour of Messrs. Mohammed Aslam and Mohammed Noorullah under the registered sale deed dated 30-11-1985. According to them, in view of the said sale deed, the landlords ceased to have any right, title or interest in the petition mentioned property and that they are no longer entitled to receive rents from them or demand eviction from the petition mentioned property. It is their further case that the said facts have been wantonly and deliberately suppressed by the respondents with a view to mislead the court. A counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent herein on behalf of the respondents admitting the sale of the properties. It is further stated that it is a bona fide mistake that they did not take any steps to bring the purchasers on record in the above revision petitions. It is conceded by them that in so far as the ground of requirement for own use and occupation is concerned, the present revision petitions may not survive and that however eviction ordered on the ground of unauthorised subletting has to be maintained. They have taken up the stand that the purchasers, who have succeeded them and who have acquired all rights in the petition premises, are fully competent to execute the order of eviction and take possession from the petitioners herein. It is no doubt true that the purchasers may be entitled to continue these proceedings by impleading themselves as parties in the place of the present respondents and work out their rights in these proceedings themselves. I am surprised to note that such a stand has been taken by the respondents. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the purchasers are aware of these proceedings and that they will seek appropriate relief by themselves. While so, it is not known how the present respondents are competent to plead on behalf of the purchasers in whose favour the transfer of title has been effected. It is not the case of the respondents that title has not passed to the purchasers or that they have got any right or interest over the petition property so as to enable them either to receive rent from the tenants or to evict them in these proceedings. While so, as on date, the respondents have lost their title to the property and as such the substratum of the eviction petition has gone. It is no longer open to them to continue these proceedings in the absence of the real owners who are alone entitled to prosecute these proceedings and evict the tenants. It is well settled principle of law that the court has to take into consideration of the subsequent events and the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at the time of hearing and mould the relief accordingly, as held by the Supreme Court, in M/S. Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohamed Ibrahim, 98 L.W.26 : Again, the Supreme Court has held in P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders that the subsequent event disabling the landlords from seeking eviction has to be taken note of by the Court in moulding the ultimate relief. In view of this legal position, I find that the present respondents have no locus standi to continue the proceedings and evict the petitioners herein. No arguments were advanced on the merits of the case and no findings are rendered on merits. The eviction proceedings are terminated. It is open to the purchasers to come forward with a fresh petition on the same grounds which are available to them on the date of the purchase. It is open to the petitioners to raise all their contentions in such a petition. No costs.