Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The sole question for determination in this is:

Whether defendant Nos. 10 to 18, in whose share the shop in dispute had come in the final decree, are entitled to recover the possession of the same from the plaintiff?

6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants that there was relationship of landlord and tenants between defendant Nos. 10 to 18 and the plaintiffs as the said defendants had stepped into the shoes of defendant Nos.l to 9 after the partition of the property had taken place and they had derived their title from defendant Nos. 1 to 9 for the purpose of Section 2(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs could not be ejected from the shop in dispute in the execution proceedings and the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act are applicable in their case.

"When land, jointly owned, is leased out by one of the co-shares, and the other cd-sharer obtains a decree for partition, the tenant can be ejected in execution. The lessee cannot contend that he is the tenant of the whole land by virtue of the lease deed and is thus protected against ejectment. A tenant let on the land by one of the co-sharers does not ipso facto become the tenant of the other co-sharers. It is of course open to the other co-sharers to adopt the tenant let on the joint land by one of the co-sharers."