IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.A. Jahagirdar M.P. Kanade, JJ.
Hiralal Vithaldas Gujarathi others ... Petitioners.
Versus
Namdeo Mahadu Jadhav... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 860 of 1979, decided on 1-2-1983.
Advocates appeared :
A.P. Vaze, for petitioners.
V.D. Hon for A.V. Savant, for respondent.
RENT ACT - EJECTMENT NOTICE - SECTION 12(2) - BOMBAY RENT ACT - INTERPRETATION - CO-OWNERS' RIGHT TO FILE EVICTION SUIT - SECTION 12(2) OF THE BOMBAY RENT ACT - INTERPRETATION - ONE CO-OWNER CAN FILE EVICTION SUIT - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - MAINTAINABILITY - CO-OWNERS' RIGHT TO FILE EVICTION SUIT - SECTION 12(2) OF THE BOMBAY RENT ACT - INTERPRETATION - ONE CO-OWNER CAN FILE EVICTION SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, co-owners of a building, filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-tenant for non-payment of rent. The trial court granted a decree for arrears of rent but dismissed the suit for possession on the ground that the suit notice was not issued by all the co-owners. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that one co-owner can file an eviction suit against a tenant under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others and Smt Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and others to support its decision.
Issues: 1. Whether one co-owner can file an eviction suit against a tenant under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act? 2. Whether the suit notice must be issued by all the co-owners?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the language of Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act does not require all the co-owners to join in the eviction suit. The court also held that the purpose of the suit notice is to inform the tenant of the landlord's intention to terminate the tenancy, and that this purpose can be served by a notice issued by one co-owner.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the lower courts' orders and decreed possession of the suit premises to the petitioners.
2. Few facts leading to this petition are that the respondent is a tenant in respect of a room of 8 khans on the ground floor of a building bearing C.S.T. No. 1694 at Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. The building originally belonged to the late Vithaldas Vishnudas Gujrathi. He died on June 20, 1967, leaving behind three sons, the petitioner herein, and three married daughters. The tenant did not pay the rent and, therefore, the petitioners issued a notice demanding the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1970 to July 31, 1972, i.e. nearly 22 months, at the rate of Rs. 20.50/- per month. By the said notice the tenancy of the tenant was terminated as the tenant did not pay the rent within one month from the receipt of the said notice, as provided under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a suit on October 7, 1972 for an order of ejection against the respondent. The respondent resisted the said suit by denying that is in arrears of the rent. According to him the munim of the petitioners was regularly recovering the rent from the respondent but he was not passing the receipt in respect thereof. It is inter alia further contended that the suit property was leased to the respondent by the father of the petitioners and since that time the respondent was in possession of the said suit property. The petitioners-plaintiffs have not joined their three married sisters who have got interest in the suit property, and as they have not been made parties to suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Admittedly, the sisters were not joined as parties to the quit notice issued by the petitioners to the respondent. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned trial Judge held that the respondent was a wilful defaulter and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for decree for arrears of rent. However, on another point the learned trial Judge refused to pass a decree for possession on the ground that the suit notice cannot be given only by one of the landlords. The sisters have not been joined as parties to the said notice, and, therefore, the decree for possession was refused. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of dismissal of their suit on the ground of illegal notice and denial of possession, preferred an appeal before the learned Assistant Judge, but the said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge by his judgment and order dated November 8, 1978. Against the said order the present writ petition has been files, challenging the legality and correctness of the said finding recorded by the learned Assistant Judge.
3. Shri Vaze, in support of the petition contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (V. Dhanpal Chetiar v. Yesodai Ammal)1, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1745, a quit notice was not necessary and, therefore, the view taken by the lower Court is incorrect in law and not tenable. Secondly it is contended that it is not necessary that all the co-owners should be joined to file a suit for eviction against the tenant. One of the co-owners can file a suit, and accordingly the petitioners are the co-owners, and, therefore, the suit is maintainable. In support of this contention Shri Vaze re
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.