Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajinder Kumar vs . Chaya Devi And Others on 16 May, 2025
Rajinder Kumar vs. Chaya Devi and others alongwith connected matter Civil Revision No. 2 of 2016 a/w Civil Revision No. 27 of 2021 Civil Revision No. 2 of 2016 16.05.2025 Present: Ms. Meera, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 to 7.
Civil Revision No. 27 of 2021 Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate, for the respondents. Civil Revision No. 27 of 2021 Respondent is a co-owner of the tenanted premises in the case at hand. The said co-owner has objected to the filing of the rent petition in the case at hand by the other co-owner.
In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment reported as 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1881 titled as Mangal Builders and Enterprises Limited and another vs. Williamson Magor and Company limited and another, wherein the question which fell for consideration before the Apex Court was as follows:-
"5. What would be the position if a co-owner objects, as in a present case, is the question that calls for an answer in the present petitions."
Response whereto was in the following terms:-
"8. The very concept of co-ownership, in the absence of any partition, would militate against the maintainability of the suit for eviction against a tenant, where the tenant is admittedly in possession which is owned by the co-owner who objects to the eviction."
Thereby holding that a petition filed by co-owner for eviction which is objected to by the other co-owner could not be maintainable.
Faced with the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peti tioner seeks time to go through the same.
List on 4th June, 2025.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge 16th May, 2025 Tarun