JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J.:—This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant by certificate from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The question that arises for decision is whether a landlord who is a co-owner of the premises with others is "the owner" within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (briefly the Act). It will turn on the interpretation of the expression "if he is the owner" under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act.

2. Briefly the facts are as follows:-

3. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) is admittedly the landlord of one late Bhagat Ram Pasricha predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant and respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendants). The tenancy was in respect of a part of the premises No. 221/1. Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta, being the entire second floor of the building. The tenancy commenced some time in 1946 and Bhagat Ram Pasricha promised to vacate the said premises within March 31, 1947 and positively after March 31, 1948. Bhagat Ram Pasricha, however, did not vacate and died on February 18, 1960, leaving behindthe defendants as his heirs. The plaintiff is only a co-sharer owner of the suit premises being one of the heirs of his father late Motilal Sen who originally owned the property.

4. The plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction of the defendants in December 1962 on the twin pleas of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement of the premises for his own occupation as well as for the occupation of the members of the joint family consisting of his mother and his married brother. The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit on both the grounds. On the question of reasonable requirement the trial Court held that the plaintiff being only a co-sharer owner cannot be said to be the owner within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act. The trial Court, however, held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the case of reasonable requirement of the members of the family "for whose benefit the premises were held by him" within the meaning of the second part of Section 13 (1) (f).

5. On appeal by the defendants the lower Appellate Court did not accept the plea of default but affirmed the finding of reasonable requirement although the learned Judge was not specific as to which of the two material parts of Sec. 13 (1) (f) would govern the case.

6. In the second appeal by the defendants before the learned single Judge of the High Court the question of factual existence of reasonable requirement was not disputed. It was, however, contended before the learned single Judge that even though the actual reasonable requirement of the premises was established the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction being only a co-sharer and as such not "the owner" of the premises within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (f). It was submitted that a co-owner was only a part-owner and was not entitled to an order of eviction under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act. The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit observing:-

"it will not be sufficient if the reasonable requirement is of all members of the family of the co-owners but such co-owners must again be the landlords who only are made entitled to a decree for recovery of the possession under Section 13 (1) (f)."

7. In the letters patent appeal before the Division Bench the High Court did not agree with the single Judge and set aside the decision and decreed the suit for eviction. The Division Bench held:

"In our opinion a co-owner is as much an absolute owner as a sole owner is with reference to the interest held by him."

8. Mr. Tarkunde, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the decision of the Division Bench is erroneous and we should accept the views of the single Judge. He submits that a land-lord in order to be able to evict a tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) mu