One of the joint owners of a property can file an eviction petition under section 10(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, even if the other joint owner opposes the eviction, provided that the opposing joint owner is made a party to the petition.

( 1 ) GROUND No. 5 in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition raises an important question as to the maintainability of a petition for eviction under section 10 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 by one co-owner where the other co-owner does not join in the petition, but on the contrary opposes the eviction of the tenant. Since this question is one of general importance, I direct that this revision petition be posted as early as possible before a Bench, which may also hear and determine the other points raised in the revision petition. In pursuance of the said order the petition came on for final hearing before the Bench. B. Rama Rao, for Petitioner. T. S. Narasinga Rao and E. Subramaniam, for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Bench was delivered by jaganmohan Reddy, C. J.- This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to the bench by our learned brother Basi Reddy, J. , because it raises an important question as to the maintainability of a petition for eviction under section 10 (2) of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as " the Act" ) by one co-owner where the other co-owner does not join in the petition, but on the contrary opposes the eviction of the tenant.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the tenant of respondent No. 1, the wife and respondent No. 2 the husband, who are joint owners of a house given to them under a deed of settlement, dated 4th June, 1965. The tenancy was evidenced by a lease deed Exhibit 2, dated 21st November, 1958, executed in favour of both the respondents, the petitioner agreeing to pay the rent to both and to obtain receipts for the same. After the period of this lease expired, the petitioner entered into a lease deed with respondent No. 2 alone, under Exhibit D-1, dated 9th January, 1960. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a notice Exhibit D-2 to the 1st respondent on 29th february, 1960, stating that she has no right to the premises and that he has entered into a lease deed with her husband, respondent No. 2 and was paying him the rents. This was in reply to that a notice issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner, exhibit P-3 to pay the rent. After the receipt of the reply notice Exhibit D-2 the 1st respondent filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller for evicting the tenant-petitioner on the ground that he has sub-let the premises, that he has committed default in payment of rents and that he has denied her title to the house all of which are grounds for eviction under section 10 (2) of the Act. Since the husband did not join her in her petition, she impleaded him as respondent No. 2 to the petition. The husband supported the tenant and stated that he obtained the house in a partition with his brother and sister and was the sole owner of the premises which he has leased out to the tenant. The Rent Controller has found as a fact that no rents were paid to the 1st respondent, that the petitioner has sub-let the premises and that he had denied her title. Apart from this, it was also found that the petitioner had obtained a mortgage of the entire premises from the 2nd respondent, which also is an act of denial of the 1st respondent s title. In appeal, these findings have been confirmed. Before the rent Controller as well as the appellate Court, the petitioner objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the 1st respondent is not alone entitled to file a petition for eviction inasmuch as she and her husband the 2nd respondent, were joint owners and until both of them join in the petition, the petition was not maintainable. This objection was rejected by both the Courts. Before us the only question that falls for determination is whether the petition is maintainable, inasmuch as only one out of the two jcint owners had filed the petition for eviction, while the other joint owner, the 2nd respondent opposes the eviction of the tenant.

( 3 ) MR. Rama Rao, l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document