A partition wall that can be removed without causing serious damage to the premises is not a permanent structure within the meaning of section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

S.H. SHETH, J.

1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises which consist of a shop. He alleges three grounds : (1) defendant No. 1 has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to defendants nos. 2, 3 and 4 ; (2) defendant No. 1 has constructed a partition wall which is a permanent structure within the meaning of section 13(l)(b) and (3) he has committed acts injurious to the suit premises.

2. The defendants denied sub-letting and commission of acts injurious to the suit property. They admitted that they have constructed it partition wall.

3. The learned Trial Judge found that defendant No. 1 has not sublet the suit premises to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, that defendant No. 1 has constructed a partition wall by which he has divided the suit shop into two parts and that he had dug fire-pits and removed the existing partition wall and that both of them are such alterations as would not be removable without causing serious damage to the suit premises. In that view of the matter the learned Trial Judge passed against the defendants a decree for possession.

4. Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned District Judge confirmed the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. It appears that a contention was raised before hint that the suit was not maintainable because the statutory notice was served upon defendant No. 1 not by the plaintiff landlord but by one Tahilram. For the reasons stated by him in his judgment the learned Appellate Judge negatived that contention and held that the suit was maintainable.

5. It is that appellate decree which is challenged by defendants Nos. 1 and 4 in this Civil Revision Application.

6. The first contention which Miss Shah has raised before me is that since the statutory notice was served upon defendant No. 1 not by the plaintiff landlord but by one Tahilram, the suit was not maintainable. She has also contended that it was Tahilram and not the plaintiff landlord who filed the suit. On that account, according to her, the suit was not maintainable.

7. She has relied upon the decision of this Court in Nanalal Girdharlal and another v. Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala and others, 13 Guj. L.R. 880. It was a case in which one of the co-owners had served the statutory notice upon the tenant. I he principle which has been laid down by this Court in that decision is that where two or more co-owners have granted a periodic tenancy, it can be determined only by a notice to quit given by all co-owners. This would be so irrespective whether the co-owners are joint tenants or tenants-in-common and whether the periodic nature of the tenancy is agreed upon between the parties or, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, is implied by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. This Court has further observed in that decision that it is not necessary that the statutory notice should be signed by all the co-owners. It is sufficient if it is given by someone acting as agent on behalf of the co-owners. The agent may be one of the co-owners himself or he may be a third person such as, for example, a solicitor or an advocate. Such an agency may be express or implied So long as the agency is established, notice to quit given by the agent would be a valid notice determining the tenancy. In any case, the authority of the agent, express or implied, must exist at the date when the notice to quit is given and subsequent ratification of the notice to quit by the co-owners would not be sufficient to determine the interest of the tenant. This decision clearly lays down that the statutory notice can be served by the landlord's agent upon the tenant. A person who acts as an agent on behalf of the landlord may have an express authority or an implied authority.

8. In the instant case, the question which has arisen is whether Tahilram D. Ramchandani was the agent of Trikamdas Dariyanomal, the lan