S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. In Smt, Kanta Goel V/s. B.P. Pathak, AIR 1977 SC 1599 their Lordships, whilst reiterating the view in Sri Ram Pasricha V/s. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, observed that the law had been put beyond all doubt that the absence of one of the other co-owners on the record does not in the least disentitle the plaintiff co-owner from suing and succeeding in the proceeding for the eviction of a tenant. They, however, observed that -

"We are not called upon to consider the piquant situation that might arise if some of the co-owners wanted the tenant to continue contrary to the relief claimed by the evicting co-owner."

That piquant situation foreshadowed by their Lordships seems to have now squarely arisen in the present case and calls for a direct answer. For the sake of precision, the issue, inter alia, in the present context may be formulated in the terms following :-

Whether under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 one of the two joint co-owners can evict the tenant from the whole of the premises on the ground of the violation of S.11(1)(d) of the said Act despite the desire and volition of the other co-owner to allow the tenant