A co-owner can maintain an eviction suit against a tenant without joining other co-owners as party plaintiffs, and payment of rent to another co-owner does not absolve the tenant's liability for default.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. The defendant in Eviction Suit No. 7/17 of 1987-89 before the Additional Munsif, Ranchi, is the appellant in this case. The plaintiff-respondent filed the above mentioned eviction suit against the defendant-appellant for ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of default and in course of proceeding the case, amendment was sought for inclusion of relief for arrears of rent. The said amendment was rejected by the learned Additional Munsif Ranchi, against which the plaintiff-respondent came up before this Court Civil Revision No. 220 of 1989 (R) and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.1.1990 and the relief for arrears of rent was also included.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant-appellant (Smt. Shanti Devi) was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff-respondent in Holding No. 738 within Ward No. II of Ranchi Municipal Corporation over M.S. Plot No. 12.23 at the rental of Rs. 75.00 per month which was agreed to payable by the tenant within the second week of every successive month, but the plaintiff-respondents case in that the rent was paid last on 12.10.1986 for the month of September, 1986, and since October, 1986, she had not paid any rent for the suit premises and, as such, she became defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). As stated above, arrears of rent was also claimed by way of amendment of the plaint.

3. The defendant-appellant by filing written statement took the plea that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties in as much as the suit premises was original owned by Braj Mohan Sahu and he died leaving behind four sons and two daughters and the plaintiff-respondent is only one of the sons of the originally landlord and he is not competent to maintain the eviction suit without inclusion of other co-owners. It has further been contended by the defendant-appellant that the suit premises was originally given in tenancy to Ramjee Prasad Verma, husband of the defendant-appellant in 1953-54 at the rental of Rs. 30.00 per month. In, 1971, Ramjee Prasad Verma died leaving behind his widow, the defendant-appellant and two sons Mahesh Chandra Verma and Suresh Chandra Verma and as such the tenanted premises have been inherited not only by the defendant-appellant but also by her two sons and without joining the two sons of the defendant-appellant, the eviction suit cannot be maintained. On the ground of default, it has been stated that the defendant-appellant paid rent upto the month of February, 1987 and when the rent for the month of March, 1987 was tendered, the plaintiff refused to receive the same and as such it was sent through money order and thereafter on every months, rents are being remitted through money order and the plaintiff is going to refuse the same.

4. In course of trial of the case, the plaintiff proved the counter-foil of the rent receipt signed by the defendant (Smt. Shanti Devi) showing thereby that the last rent was paid upto September, 1986. As regards the rents for the month of October, 1996 to February, 1987, the defendant attempted to show that the rents were paid to another co-owner and as such she cannot be held to be defaulter as from March, 1987, she was tendering the rent through money orders.

5. Regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, the original court held that the defendant Smt. Shanti Devi was inducted as tenant and she remained as tenant in the suit premises under the plaintiff and as such the relationship existed between the two.

6. The case of the plaintiff is that although the suit premises was originally owned by his father, by was of. will, the same has been given to him but that will has not been probated. But the fact remained that the suit premises remained in the share of the plaintiff and he inducted the defendant as tenant over the suit premises. It is denied that Ramjee Das Verma was