S. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE 4 revision petitions arise under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The petitioners are the tenants who are unsuccessful in both the Tribunals below and suffered orders of eviction from non-residential premises owned by the three respondents/landlords. The respondents had instituted the proceedings under the above Act for the eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground of personal requirement and after comprehensive enquiry into the said aspect, the Rent Controller held that though for the 1st respondent, personal requirement was not proved beyond doubt, as proof varied with pleadings, the said Tribunal had emphatically found that the personal requirement of respondents 2 and 3 for setting up their business is bona fide. So far as the factum of bona fides as regards the requirement for personal occupation by the respondents 2 and 3 is concerned, there is concurrent finding of fact and the same is not open in revision petitions for challenge on the appreciation of evidence and rightly, Mr. Mallikarjuna Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not canvass the findings of fact and he had concentrated on the legal point involved. But, before recording the legal point which is involved for adjudication, which of course is very important point of law for consideration, statement of some undisputed facts is necessary.

( 2 ) THE respondents had purchased the premises jointly under a sale-deed and had thus, become co-owners of the non-residential premises under the occupation of the petitioners. The respondents are Muslims and though construction of Hindu joint family is not applicable to them, yet they are the co-owners and that too undivided. Now, in view of the peculiar situation of non-suiting the 1st respondent rejecting his plea of personal requirement and allowing the plea of respondents 2 and 3 for occupation of the premises for the purpose of carrying on their business, the important question which falls for consideration is as to whether"in the absence of any partition among co-owners/ landlords and in view of findings that one of the co-owners does not require the premises for personal occupation and that the other co-owners do require the premises for their personal occupation, can the tenants be evicted?"some decisions have been cited in this regard and out of the same, the decisions in Damodaram Chetti v. Rukmaniamma, (1967) 11 Andh WR 200 and Mohd. A. Razak v. Saleemunnisa, AIR 1972 AP 375, deal with the maintainability of eviction petition filed by one co-owner against the tenants. In Damodarara s case, it was held that there is ho objection under law to file an eviction petition by one of the co-owners, but the other co-owners have to be made respondents/ defendants. This decision has got no direct bearing on the point involved in the instant case.

( 3 ) IN Mohd. A. Razak v. Saleemunnisa, AIR 1972 AP 375, it was held that one co-owner can maintain ah eviction petition against the tenant even without making other co-owners as respondents/defendants, if he was receiving rents on behalf of the other co-owners and particularly, when there is no objection raised by other co-owners, thus making a distinction of the decision in Damodaram s case. This decision also has no direct bearing on the point involved in the instant case for adjudication, as the maintainability is not questioned in the instant case, but only the acceptance of plea for eviction of all the tenants in spite of two findings, one against one of the co-owners and the another in favour of the other two co-owners was given. Concisely speaking, what Mr. Mallik-arjuna Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends is that the petitioners are in separate possession of four shops which are non-residential while there are 3 landlords and out of whom only two landlords are having a finding of personal requirement in their favour and if that be so, they ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document