Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal Sood vs Sarwan Singh And Ors. on 10 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)143PLR19A
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner in a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The ejectment of the petitioner has been sought on the ground that the shop in dispute was let out by Ujjagar Singh, father of the respondents, at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and after the death of Ujjagar Singh, the petitioner became tenant under respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. The rent was resettled at Rs. 500/- per month. It was pleaded that Sarwan Singh, respondent No. 1 herein, has retired from Govt. service in Canada in the year 1997 and he wants to shift to India, his native country, permanently and requires the shop in dispute to carry out the business of wrist watches etc. It was also pleaded that previously the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of arrears of rent; that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation; and that the same is required for bona fide use and occupation but the said petition was dismissed and the appeal is pending before the learned Appellate Authority.
3. The tenant contested the petition by asserting that Sarwan Singh is a Canadian National and is living abroad since long. His children are also settled there and, therefore, he has got no bona fide and legal necessity to occupy the premises in dispute. It is also pleaded that the rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month and the shop was let out by Sarwan Singh alone. It was alleged that the respondents arc not Non Resident Indians and, therefore, not covered under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act to seek eviction in a summary manner.
4. Leave to defend the application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. After recording of evidence and its consideration, it was held that Sarwan Singh is a Non Resident Indian and is, thus, entitled to seek eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act. Reliance was placed on passport Exhibit P-2. It has also been found that Sarwan Singh was the owner of the property in dispute for the last more than five years and, thus, pre-requisite condition to seek eviction under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act is satisfied.
5. In the present revision petition, aggrieved against the said judgment, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the premises were not let out by the respondents and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to seek eviction. It is also argued that since Sarwan Singh is the co-owner, he cannot seek eviction of the entire premises. It is also argued that two shops were given on rent but the requirement pleaded is that of only one shop and. therefore, the ejectment order in respect of two shops cannot be passed.
6. However, I am unable to accept any of the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted by the petitioner in the written statement itself that the respondents are Canadian Nationals. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 1 is living abroad since long whereas respondent No. 2 Gian Singh has recently gone to Canada and has acquired Canadian Nationality. It is not disputed that both of them were earlier residing in India and subsequently acquired Canadian Nationality. In view thereof, the respondents are Non Resident Indians and, therefore, entitled to seek eviction of the tenant in terms of Section 13-B of the Act.
7. Sarwan Singh is admitted to be the landlord by the petitioner in the written statement. The requirement of both the respondents is pleaded. The said respondents being co-sharers are entitled to seek eviction of a tenant in a summary manner. Till such time the property is actually partitioned by metes and bounds, a co-sharer is the owner of every part of the property. It has been held by this Court in Civil Revision No. 6938 of 2005 (Kewal Krishan v. Mohan Singh (2006-2) 143 P.L.R. 10 decided on 9.1.2006 relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 16, that a co-owner is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant in a summary manner although the other co-owners may not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: -
It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath , Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh , 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 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....
8. In the said judgment, the Court concluded that the major sons though co-owners may not have been joined as party to the proceedings but it would not adversely affect the maintainability of the proceedings. It would also not make any difference if they are also joined as party to the proceedings. The presence of such co-landlords as co plaintiffs or co-applicants, as are not classified landlords as defined in Section 23-J of the Act does not alter the nature of claim preferred by the widow landlady and, therefore, does not take the proceedings out of the scope of Section 23-A(b).
9. In view of the said judgment, I am of the opinion that the mere fact that the respondent is a co-owner will not disentitle the respondent from seeking eviction of a tenant of a joint property. Till such time the property is actually partitioned by metes and bounds, the respondent owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others. Therefore, the respondent is competent to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Rent Act.
10. The argument that two shops were let out and the requirement is of one shop is again misconceived. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondents have pleaded requirement of one shop. As a matter of fact, the shops were given on rent under one tenancy. Since it is common tenancy in respect of both the shops, the tenant is liable to be evicted from both the shops. It is well settled that tenancy cannot be splitted. Admittedly, both the respondents, who have sought eviction, are Canadian Nationals. Therefore, requirement in respect of two shops cannot be said to be lacking any bona fide.
11. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
12. The revision petition is dismissed.