Karnataka High Court
Mr. Rizwan Pasha vs Smt. Sumanamurali on 8 December, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52049
CRP No. 456 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 456 OF 2024 (SC)
BETWEEN:
MR. RIZWAN PASHA
S/O LATE JAMSHEED PASHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4/1/1
BERLIE STREET CROSS,
LANGFORD TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SUMANAMURALI
Digitally signed D/O LATE NITHYANANDA
by
SHARADAVANI W/O SRI. MURALIDHARA
B
Location: High AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Court of RESIDING AT NO.202-3
Karnataka
OPP NIRMALA THEATRE
KALYA GATE, MAGADI - 562 120.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.S. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 1.04.2024 PASSED IN SC NO.203/2023 ON
THE FILE OF IX ASCJ AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52049
CRP No. 456 of 2024
HC-KAR
BENGALURU., PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT
AND DAMAGES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Prithvi Raj B. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.B.S.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondent.
2. Defendant in S.C.No.203/2023 is the revision petitioner challenging the decree of ejectment passed in said suit.
3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1. Smt.Saraswathi, who is the mother of the plaintiff - Smt.Sumanamurali, was the land lady of the following premises (hereinafter referred to as suit property):-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR "All that piece and parcel of the commercial shop No.1/1, situated at property No.217, New No.1, 6th Cross, First Main Road, S.R.Nagar, Bangalore-560 027, measures East to West 10 feet and North to South 3 feet, bounded on East by main road, West by Private property, North by road and South by shop No.1/2, wherein running service center in the name of Rolex Motor Service."
3.2. After the death of Smt.Saraswathi, the plaintiff started exercising the ownership right over the suit property. Defendant was notified about the requirement of the plaintiff and termination of the lease by issuing a legal notice vide Ex.P.1.
3.3. Though the legal notice was duly served, there was no compliance and an untenable reply came to be issued by the defendant.
3.4. Smt.Sumanamurali admittedly claimed right over the suit property by virtue of the Will executed by Smt.Saraswathi dated 12.01.2017. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR 3.5. In respect of the assets left behind by Smt.Saraswathi, there is a suit pending in O.S.No.26003/2021 on the file of City Civil and Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-20).
3.6. In the said suit, other legal heirs of Smt.Saraswathi have specifically contended that defendant continued as a tenant under Smt.Sumanamurali and therefore, suit for ejectment was filed by Smt.Sumanamurali against the defendant.
4. Suit on contest came to be decreed.
5. Operative portion of order of the Trial Court reads as under:
"The suit is partly decreed with cost.
The defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment and decree.
In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of schedule -5- NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR premises within three months the plaintiff is at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises by due process of law.
Draw decree accordingly."
6. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the tenant who has filed the present revision petition on following grounds:
The court below committed a serious error in not properly apprising the facts and applicable law, that in a suit for ejectment of tenant, if any Co-owner is opposing for the eviction, then remaining Co-owner (s) cannot be permitted to evict a tenant unless the property is divided by metes and bounds and the disputed portion has fallen to the share of the Co-owner who wanted to evict the tenant. In the case on hand, Archana (Co-owner) through her PA holder has adduced evidence as D.W-2 deposing that she is opposing for eviction of the tenant. The tenant has to continue till partition is effected by metes and bounds of the property.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of SK Sattar SK.Mohd. Choudhari Vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 373, at paragraph 37 that "As pointed out earlier, a co-sharer cannot initiate action for eviction of the tenant from the portion of the tenanted accommodation nor can he sue for his part of the rent. The tenancy cannot be split up either in estate or in rent or any other obligation by unilateral act of one of the co- owners. If however, all the co-owners or the co-lessors agree among themselves and split by partition the demised property by metes and bounds and come to have definite, positive and identifiable share in that property, they become separate individual owners of each severed portion and can deal with that portion as also the tenant thereof as individual owner/lessor".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai and Others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 16, at paragraph 16 that "When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a -7- NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR part-owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Others Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agrarwalla and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 178, at paragraph 6 that "It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 724, at paragraph 11 that "It is not necessary for the co-owner to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR show before initiating the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller that he had taken option or consent of the other co-owners. However, in the event a co-owner objects thereto, the same be a relevant fact. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the co-owners of the respondent had objected to eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent herein." In the case on hand the Co-owner (Archana) is emphatically opposing to evict the tenant at her sister's highhanded intention.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Girish S/o. Dharmavir Madan Vs. Nandakumar S/o Shankarrao Rasne & others, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 255, at paragraph 2 that "The process of identification of the respective shares shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by either party before the trial court. Till such time, the eviction proceedings as against the appellant shall be kept in abeyance".
The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held in the case of Akhilesh Singh Vs. Vijay Singh & anr., reported in 2003 SCC Online All 1391 at para 6 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR that "In view of what has been discussed above it has to be held that where there are several co-owners one of them alone cannot terminate the tenancy unless he is the landlord or has the consent express or implied of the other co-landlords. The revision is allowed. The order of the Judge Small Causes dated 19-8- 2002 is set aside."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held in the case of Navin Chander Anand Vs. Union Bank of India & others, reported in 2018 SCC Online Del 9902 at para 9 that "However, in the present case the other co-owners, being defendant nos. 2 to 5/respondent nos. 2 to 5, have in fact opposed the termination of tenancy and also of the appellant/plaintiff seeking possession and mesne profits of the tenanted premises through the subject suit. Therefore, what will apply in the facts of the present case will be the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sk. Satter Sk. Mohd. Choudhari (supra) and Jagdish Dutt (supra) and not the ratio of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash (supra). Para 10 "The suit was dismissed rightly by the trial court in view of the fact that other co- owners/co-landlords being the respondent nos,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR 2 to 5/defendant nos.2 to 5 did not agree to termination of tenancy and the eviction of the tenant/respondent no.1/defendant no. 1 from the suit property."
The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad held in the case of Jaibunissa & anr. Vs. Sajid Khan & anr., in W.P.No.822/2017 at para 11 that "It is trite that as laid down in the case of Ram Pasricha and Dhannalal (supra) based on the doctrine of agency only some of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant. It is equally trite that in the matter of India Umbrella (supra) an exception to such principle has been carved out. It is applicable to a situation where the other co-owners are not agreeable to such ejectment and still the other co-owners file a suit for eviction. It is in that eventuality that the suit would not be maintainable at the instance of only some of them."
The court below committed a serious error in not at all taking into consideration for the aforementioned guiding precedents though they were placed on record in the course of submission by the counsel for petitioner herein. The trial court has not even bothered
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR to state in the impugned judgment that the defendant's counsel has relied upon these decisions, let alone discussing the ratio laid down in those decisions. The trial court has conveniently omitted to take note of the judgments that are against the case of the plaintiff/resp.no.1 herein.
The trial court committed a serious error in not at all discussing or taken into consideration of the above binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts though it is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. But the trial court at para 17 of the Judgment held that "As this is suit for ejectment against the tenant, the landlord or any one heir of the landlord can file a suit for eviction..." which is contrary to the law laid down by the afore cited cases. Thus, approach of the court below is perverse and biased. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in law and the same is required to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contented that the other co-owners are objecting for the eviction and in such circumstances, the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai reported in (2002) 6 SCC 16 would come into operation and a single co-owner cannot evict a tenant and thus, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.
8. He would also contend that other co-owners not only objected for ejectment, but also filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court and they have deposed before the Court in favour of the tenant and therefore, the decree for ejectment is incorrect and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order by contending that
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR there is a categorical admission in the form of pleadings by the co-owners in the suit for injunction by contending that defendant is the tenant under Smt.Sumanamurali. Therefore, such a contention now urged by the tenant is only to harass the land lady who has got the right under the Will executed by Smt.Saraswathi in her favour which is also marked before the Court as Ex.P.10 and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that at an undisputed point of time, it is Smt.Saraswati who was the land lady under whom the revision petitioner became the tenant.
12. Admittedly, Smt.Saraswathi died in the month of March 2018. She had executed a Will on 12.01.2017. Revision petitioner without any objection, started paying the rent to the respondent recognizing the ownership in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR the respondent. In fact, the cheque issued by the revision petitioner towards the rent came to be dishonored and there were proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
13. When the matter stood thus, there was a suit for partition filed by the other siblings of Smt.Sumanamurali, which is pending for consideration, claiming that they are also having right in the suit property and the alleged Will executed by Smt.Saraswathi in favour of Smt.Sumanamurali is incorrect.
14. Taking advantage of the said dispute, revision petitioner/tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.7722/2022 for injunction not to evict the revision petitioner from the suit property in view of the inter se dispute between the co- owners.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR
15. Suit came to be disposed of by contending that the tenant would not be evicted without due process of law. Subsequently, the present suit for ejectment came to be filed by the respondent and on contest; the suit came to be decreed.
16. No doubt, by virtue of the principles of law enunciated in Dhannalal supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.16 held as under:
"16. It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath [(1976) 4 SCC 184] , Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak [(1977) 2 SCC 814] and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh [(1989) 1 SCC 444] that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property so
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. In Sri Ram Pasricha case [(1976) 4 SCC 184] reliance was placed by the tenant on the English rule that if two or more landlords institute a suit for possession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for occupation of one of them as a residence the suit would fail; the requirement must be of all the landlords. The Court noted that the English rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule of English law. This Court held that a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff though he was not the absolute and full owner of the premises because he required the premises for his own use and also satisfied the requirement of being "if he is the owner", the expression as employed by Section 13(1)(f) of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956."
17. Taking advantage from the said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to supra, learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend that when
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR there is an objection by the co-owner, the Trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit.
18. In the case on hand, according to the revision petitioner, she is the absolute owner by virtue of the Will. As such, the principles of law enunciated in the case of Dhannalal supra, may not be squarely applicable to the case on hand in view of the Will said to have been executed by Smt.Saraswathi in favour of the respondent herein.
19. It is not a case where Smt.Saraswathi died intestate and all the children of Smt.Saraswathi are having equal rights in the suit property.
20. If the Will executed by Smt.Saraswathi is ultimately held to be invalid in the pending suit in O.S.No.7722/2022, then necessarily the other siblings of respondent would get a share in the suit property which would not in any way, come in the way of the ejection
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR decree passed by the Court below which is impugned in the present revision petition.
21. Having said thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the tenant having failed to pay the rents regularly and filing a suit against the land lady and land lady is now evicting the revision petitioner in accordance with law, the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to set aside the impugned order.
22. At this juncture, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also contend that there is a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as security deposit paid by the tenant to Smt.Saraswathi. Same is refuted by learned counsel for the respondent.
23. If the tenant has to get back sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, he may file necessary suit against the respondent and if advised, against other co-owners as well who have supported him in the suit for ejectment by deposing in his favour.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:52049 CRP No. 456 of 2024 HC-KAR
24. With that liberty, this Court is of the concerned opinion that the impugned order does not require interference.
25. Hence, following:
ORDER i. Revision petition dismissed.
ii. Time to vacate the suit premises is extended till 31st March, 2026.
iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the land lady under due identification subject to the result of the intended suit for recovery of the security deposit.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54