A single co-owner can initiate eviction proceedings against a tenant without the consent of other co-owners based on agency principles, supporting the maintainability of such petitions.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 9th June 2022, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller ("the learned ARC") in Case No. E-36/2019 (Inder Mohan Nagpal v. Harish Kumar). The learned ARC has, by the impugned order, adjudicated an application filed by the petitioner, as the respondent in the aforesaid eviction petition, under Order VII Rule 11¹ read with Order I Rule 10(2)² of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The learned ARC, in one breath, has rejected the petitioner's application both under Order VII Rule 11 as well as Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC.

2. As the recital hereinafter would make apparent, while this Court does not find any cause to interfere with the decision of the learned ARC, insofar as it rejects the petitioner's prayer under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, no conscious application of mind to the petitioner's prayer under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC appears to have been accorded by the learned ARC. As such, the impugned order, to the extent it rejects the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, would be required to be set aside, as it is unsupported by any reason whatsoever.

3. I proceed, therefore, to examine the impugned order, insofar as it deals with the petitioner's prayer for rejection of the eviction petition instituted by the respondent, under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

4. The eviction petition E-36/2019, wherein the impugned order has come to be passed, was preferred under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1)³ [hereinafter "Section 14(1)(e)"] of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 ("the DRC Act"). The respondent, as the petitioner in the eviction petition, claimed to be owner/landlord of the property situated at Shop 1/151, forming part of Building No.147 to 155 Ward No. 1, Ganga Auto Market, Punja Sharif Chowk, Ganda Nala Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 ("the tenanted premises", hereinafter). The petition averred that the aforesaid shop had been let out to the petitioner Harish Kumar as a tenant and that the respondent was in possession only of one small Shop No. I-152/12, admeasuring 5' x 10' and a storage godown on the first floor of the building no. 147 to 155. The area of which the respondent was in possession was stated to be insufficient to cater to the needs of the respondent and his son. The respondent, therefore, averred, in the eviction petition, that he was in need of the shop on the ground floor of the aforesaid property, for which reason he sought eviction of the petitioner therefrom.

5. Consequent to issuance of notice in the aforesaid eviction petition, the petitioner applied under Section 25B(4)⁴ of the DRC Act for leave to defend the eviction petition.

6. Prior to grant of leave to defend, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, which has come to be dismissed by the learned ARC vide order dated 9th June 2022, under challenge in the present petition.

7. In his application, the petitioner alleged that the respondent was not the absolute owner of the tenanted premises, as the property, in which the shop was located, was under ownership of several co-owners, of which the respondent was but one. It was sought to be contended that a single co-owner could not have filed the eviction petition, seeking to evict the tenant therefrom, unless shares of the co-owners were determined by partition prior thereto. Else, such an eviction petition would require the consent of all other co-owners in the property.

8. The petiti