JUDGMENT :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

1) By the present civil revision application filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the applicant, who is the original defendant in a Rent Act eviction suit challenges the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench.

2) I have heard the counsel of both the sides and with their help, I have gone through the documents on record.

3) According to Mr.Dande - the advocate appearing for the respondent no.1-original plaintiffs, suit was filed on the grounds of unauthorized construction, subletting, change of user, bona fide requirement and arrears of rent. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 30 June, 2009.

4) It is Mr.Dande’s case that both the plaintiffs jointly filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff no.2 died. Hence, the legal heirs were brought on record. The appeal was answered in favour of the plaintiffs and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside.

5) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court dated 3 May, 2014, the present applicant has filed the present civil revision application under section 115 of the CPC.

6) Mr.Dewal appearing for the applicant submits that during the pendency of the civil revision application before this Court, by a conveyance deed dated 22 April, 2016, the applicant-tenant purchased 50% share of the building in which suit premises is situated from the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff no.2. Hence, he became the owner of the 50% of the suit premises.

6.1) Mr.Dewal referred the documents being communication dated 10 September, 1979 written by the plaintiff no.1 to the plaintiff no.2 thereby directing the plaintiff no.1 not to proceed with filing of any suit against the tenant, who is the applicant herein. This document was written before filing of eviction suit.

6.2) Mr.Dewal further referred to various documents and said that even for filing of a suit, there was an objection raised by the plaintiff no.2. However, by playing fraud, the suit for eviction was filed.

7) The original plaintiff no.1, now the respondent no.2 is represented by advocate Mr.Mhatre, who has filed two interim applications in the present proceedings. The first civil application numbered as Civil Application No. 130 of 2019, he seeks a prayer that Special Civil Suit No. 217 of 2002 be treated as disposed of as withdrawn as far as applicants herein are concerned and thereafter second interim application which was filed, numbered as Interim Application No. 4 of 2020, seeks to transpose him as defendant and under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of C.P.C., to frame an issue and remit the matter back to the Trial Court since there is a ground of separation of agreements as the plaintiff no.1 had practiced fraud upon the Court. And hence, further to withdraw the earlier Civil Application No. 130 of 2019.

7.1) Mr.Mhatre further submits that his client does not want to continue with the eviction proceedings against the tenant and the eviction proceedings be treated as withdrawn.

8) Supreme Court in the judgment of Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724 has held that one of the co- owner can file a suit on behalf of other co-owner. However, if a co- owner objects to such eviction proceedings, the same will be relevant. Paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the said judgment reads as under :-

10. This question now stands concluded by a decision of this Court in India Umbrella Mfg. Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178 wherein this Court opined: (SCC p. 183, para 6)

"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. (See Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibar, SCC para 25.) This principle is based on the doctrine