A co-owner can maintain an eviction petition under the Rent Control Act without impleading others, provided he is receiving the rent on behalf of himself and others. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. can be applied to implead a necessary or proper party in a rent control proceeding, even though there is no specific provision in the Rent Control Act.

A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE tenant is the revisionist herein. He has come to this Court against heavy odds, as both the Courts concurrently atcorded relief to the respondents-landlords both on the grounds of wilful default as well as bona finde requirement of the landlords. But however the great stress has been laid in this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri s. Venkateswara Rao, on the point that all the co-owners must be impleaded and without doing so, the eviction petition is not maintainable. The impleading petition the argument further runs which is now sought to be filed by the other co-owner who is left out initially cannot be allowed for the reason firstly that the provisions laid down under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. are not applicable to the Rent control proceedings and secondly the application is only for impleading the other co-owner as respondent to this case and not to the R. C. Much of case law has been relied on by both the parties; so the same be adverted to.

( 2 ) IN Damodaram Chetti V. Rukmar. iamma (1) 1967 (1) An. W. R. 200 a Division Bench of this court held:"one of the joint owners or co-owners (of a building) can ask for eviction of a tenant who has been let in by both the owners (wife and husband) notwithstanding that the other co-owner (husband) or co-owners are not willing to join the plaintiff or the petitioner in asking for eviction and on the other hand, do not want the tenant to be evicted, provided such a co-owner or co-owners are made parties to the suit or petition. If this is not the law, cases can be envisaged where one of the co-owners in collusion with the tenant can affect complete dispossession of the other co-owner by nearly getting the tenant to acknowledge his sole possession and title. When a co-owner is entitled to possession of immovable property in entirety along with the other co-owners it is not permissible for one of the co-owners, subsequently in league with the tenant to permit him to be in possession of the whole of the premises on behalf of himself alone which in effect will oust the other co-owners of the possession of the property to which he is of right entitled. "in Md. Abdul Razack Vs. Saleemunnisa sahaba (2) AIR 1972 A. P. 375 a learned single Judge of this Court held:"what all is required to entitle a person to file a petition for eviction under the Act is that he should be receiving or must be entitled to receive the rent of a building. When the tenant was paying the rent payable for the whole of the building only to the co-owner and that co-owner was receiving the same he would be a "landlord" within the meaning of Cl. (6) of s. 2 of the Act and that clothes him with the right to file a petition for eviction under the act without joining any other person who may be a co-owner of the building. The fact that he is only one of the co-owners of the building and that there is another co-owner who has not joined him in filing the petition does not take away his right to file a petition for eviction under the Act. "

( 3 ) A decision of this Court in Naganath Vs. Abdul Waheed (3) 1981 (1) A. L. T. page 85 has been cited for the ratio that pleadings must be specific in the r. C. Proceedings and the provisions of the Civil Procedure code are also applicable.

( 4 ) A Division Bench of this court in B. Vinod Kumar Vs. D. Ravindernath (4) 1985 (1) a. P. L. J. page 57 held:"the definition of landloro as made under Sec. 2 (iv) of the act has to be read along with and subject to Sec. 10 (8 ). In the instant case though the petitioner does not answer the description of"an agent" under Sec. 2 (iv) as he has been receiving rents he answers the description of "a person who is receiving the rent on behalf of his divided brother owner". The nonobstante clause in Sec. 10 (8) would take in both a person who is receiving the rent of a building on behalf of another as also the person who has been receiving such rents merely as an agent of the owner when such right to collec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document