A co-owner cannot create tenancies in the property without the consent of the other co-owners.

( 1 ) THESE are three sets of objections under Order 21 Rules 36 and 96 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by three different objectors, who claim themselves to be tenants in separate portions of property bearing No. 5, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi.

( 2 ) THE decree in the present case is based upon an award given by Shri P. N. Khanna, a retired Judge of this Court, who had acted as sole arbitrator between the family members of late Shri Suraj Balram Sawhney, for adjudicating disputes and differences inter-se them with regard to their joint properties, and effecting their partition. Suraj Balram had left behind two sons, namely, Krishan Gopal Sawhney and Ram Gopal Sawhney, and his widow Smt. Ram Piari Sawhney. The award dated 22-5-1978 was later made a rule of the Court on 14-3-1980.

( 3 ) THE present execution concerns property No. 5, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi, which admittedly has fallen to the share of Krishan Gopal Sawhney. It is be an decree-holder of this property, who is seeking its possession. Initially he had sought actual possession of the second floor of this property in terms of the award which required him to pay Rs. 10,000. 00 to Ram Gopal Sawhney, the judgment-debtor. The amount was paid, and delivery of possession of that floor has also been obtained. This followed the rejection of certain objections of a third party who claimed to be a tenant therein. On the ground floor of this property, the Indian Overseas Bank is the tenant from long, and symbolic possession thereof was given to Krishan Gopal Sawhney.

( 4 ) NOW Krishan Gopal Sawhney has applied for delivery of actual possession of the basement, front mezzanine and the first and third floors of this property. According to him, the persons claiming to be in their ponenion have been set up by Ram Gopal Sawhney, and they in collugion with him are falsely setting up tenancies in their favour. One of them is his wife, and the others are close friends. These persons were stated to have been inducted by Ram Gopal Sawhney in those portions when the family had already fallen out, and disputes anil differences had arisen between the members, Ram Gopal Sawhney as one of the co-owners of this property, it is contended, could not have created any tenancy in this property without the approval, and to the detriment of the other co-owners. Now when this property has been allotted to Krishan Gopal Sawhney, he contends that he is entitled to obtain its actual possession and dispossess the judgment-debtor and all persons inducted by him or deriving title from him.

( 5 ) THE first set of objections is by Ramsons Industries through its sole Proprietor Mrs. Kamla Sawhney who is the wife of Ram Gopal Sawhney, the Judgment-debtor. She claims that the basement of this property was let out to her by her husband on 1-1-1970 at the rent of Rs. 500. 00 per month, and she has been in possession since then and running her garments business there. This was thus stated to be long before the institution of suit No, 74 of 1976 on 21. 1. 1976, in which the matters were REFERRED TO arbitration, and the award followed of which execution is now being sought. It is pointed out that her this business has been assessed to income-tax from 1971, that this was registered as a small scale industry with the Directorate of Industries, Delhi in the year 1970, a telephone was also installed in 1971, and she has been, besides, maintaining bank account with the address of that premises. The Delhi Municipal Corporation as well twice attached arrears of rent due from Ramsons Industries to the extent of Rs. 18,000. 00 in 1976 towards the property tax and a photo copies of the payment of that amount by her business to the Corporation have been produced. There was a mention of this let out in the order dated 3. 9. 1974 which Mrs. Aruna Suresh, Sub Judge, Delhi, made on an interim injunction application in suit No. 190 of 1974, between Krishan Gopal Sawhney and Ram Gopal Sawhney and oth