A co-owner can file for tenant eviction without consent from others unless they oppose, provided ownership is clear, as per a valid Will.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri.Prithvi Raj B.N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.B.S.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondent.

2. Defendant in S.C.No.203/2023 is the revision petitioner challenging the decree of ejectment passed in said suit.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1. Smt.Saraswathi, who is the mother of the plaintiff - Smt.Sumanamurali, was the land lady of the following premises (hereinafter referred to as suit property):

“All that piece and parcel of the commercial shop No.1/1, situated at property No.217, New No.1, 6^th Cross, First Main Road, S.R.Nagar, Bangalore-560 027, measures East to West 10 feet and North to South 3 feet, bounded on East by main road, West by Private property, North by road and South by shop No.1/2, wherein running service center in the name of Rolex Motor Service.”

3.2. After the death of Smt.Saraswathi, the plaintiff started exercising the ownership right over the suit property. Defendant was notified about the requirement of the plaintiff and termination of the lease by issuing a legal notice vide Ex.P.1.

3.3. Though the legal notice was duly served, there was no compliance and an untenable reply came to be issued by the defendant.

3.4. Smt.Sumanamurali admittedly claimed right over the suit property by virtue of the Will executed by Smt.Saraswathi dated 12.01.2017.

3.5. In respect of the assets left behind by Smt.Saraswathi, there is a suit pending in O.S.No.26003/2021 on the file of City Civil and Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-20).

3.6. In the said suit, other legal heirs of Smt.Saraswathi have specifically contended that defendant continued as a tenant under Smt.Sumanamurali and therefore, suit for ejectment was filed by Smt.Sumanamurali against the defendant.

4. Suit on contest came to be decreed.

5. Operative portion of order of the Trial Court reads as under:

“The suit is partly decreed with cost.

The defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment and decree.

In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of schedule premises within three months the plaintiff is at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises by due process of law.

Draw decree accordingly.”

6. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the tenant who has filed the present revision petition on following grounds:

The court below committed a serious error in not properly apprising the facts and applicable law, that in a suit for ejectment of tenant, if any Co-owner is opposing for the eviction, then remaining Co-owner (s) cannot be permitted to evict a tenant unless the property is divided by metes and bounds and the disputed portion has fallen to the share of the Co-owner who wanted to evict the tenant. In the case on hand, Archana (Co-owner) through her PA holder has adduced evidence as D.W-2 deposing that she is opposing for eviction of the tenant. The tenant has to continue till partition is effected by metes and bounds of the property.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari Vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, (1996) 6 SCC 373, at paragraph 37 that "As pointed out earlier, a co-sharer cannot initiate action for eviction of the tenant from the portion of the tenanted accommodation nor can he sue for his part of the rent. The tenancy cannot be split up either in estate or in rent or any other obligation by unilateral act of one of the co-owners. If however, all the co-owners or the co-lessors agree among themselves and split by partition the demised property by