Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bankelal S/O Ramlal vs Madhoprashad S/O Prabhudayal And Anr. on 14 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)MPLJ298, 1997 A I H C 4140, (1997) 2 MPLJ 298 (1997) 2 RENCR 588, (1997) 2 RENCR 588
ORDER T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Heard counsel.
The brief facts for the purposes of this civil revision be noticed as under:
Madhoprashad and Chandraprakash, who figure as respondents in this petition have purchased the suit property. After purchasing the property, a suit was filed seeking eviction of Bankelal, the present petitioner. So far as landlord, Madhoprashad is concerned, he sought eviction of the tenant from the premises purchased by him on the plea that these premises are required by him for starting the business of sale of steel and iron. So far as landlord, Chandraprakash, respondent No. 2 is concerned, he took a plea that he required the premises purchased by him for sale of coolers. The present petitioner put in appearance. He took an objection that as there are two landlords seeking eviction from different portions, therefore, the eviction suit is not maintainable. The precise objection taken was that both the landlords should pursue their remedies separately against the petitioner-tenant.
2. Thus, the question arises as to whether when suit property is purchased by two different persons in different portions under separate deeds, then suit filed by them jointly for eviction of the tenant is maintainable or not.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision given by this Court reported as Kanhaiyalal v. Keshodas, AIR 1961 MP 46. In this case, a suit for eviction by purchaser of the premises against two separate tenants was filed. This suit was held to be not maintainable. This case does not deal directly with the proposition and as a matter of fact, it presents the picture in a reverse position.
4. An authority of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Hariram Fatan Das v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1975 Raj. 23, is nearer to the proposition which is propounded by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondents. In that case, it was held that when suit property is purchased by two separate persons by separate deeds, then a suit by all of them for eviction of the whole property is maintainable.
5. Independently of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court, I am of the opinion that the course which has been adopted by the landlords is a course which would lead to avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that such a course can be adopted.
6. Following the ratio of decision given by the Rajasthan High Court in Hariram Fatan Das's case (supra), I am of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court calls for no interference.
This petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.