The implied covenant of the lessee to deliver up the premises on the determination of the tenancy must be enforced jointly by all co-owners, except in cases of estoppel. The power under Article 227 is one of superintendence and should be exercised sparingly.

Petitioner is the tenant and respondents 1 to 3 are landlords. Transaction covered by Ext.P4 lease deed admittedly comes within the purview of rent control legislation. In R.C.P. No.13 of 1984 before Rent Control Court. Perintalmanna, respondents 1 to 3 sought to evict petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. Claim under S.11(3), on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation, was rejected. Eviction was allowed only on the ground of arrears of rent. In appeal, eviction was granted under S.11(3) also. That was confirmed in revision. Attempt is to get these orders vacated, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Grounds taken up are: i) Over and above respondents 1 to 3, there is another co-owner also. Wife of the petitioner purchased share of that co-owner. Hence respondents 1 to 3 alone are not entitled to evict him; ii) Ext.P4 must be considered as a permanent lease, which is not liable to be terminated, as there is a provision for renewal; and iii) Findings of the appellate and revisional courts, on bona fide need, are perverse justifying interference.

3. Law presumes that each and every co-owner is as much in possession of the entire co-ownership property as any other co-owner. So also, his possession is considered in law to be on behalf of other co-owners also. Trespass into co-ownership property is a wrong against the possession of all co-owners even though all may not be in physical possession. Rule is well settled that a co-owner can, without representing the other co-owners or without joining them, maintain an action to evict a trespasser. That is because an act of trespass in an individual wrong against every co-owner and actionable at the hands of each of them. It is the right of every co-owner to preserve the co-ownership property against invasion and protect the rights of other co-owners also.

4. But there was divergence of opinion as to whether such individual exercise of right is possible or not where a co-owner seeks to evict a tenant, who is in possession of the co-ownership property after determination of the lease in his favour. A Full Bench of Gujarat High Court, in Nanalal Girdharlal and another v. Gulamnabi Jamal Bhai Motorwala and others ( A.I.R.1973 Gujarat 131), said that it is not possible. A lease usually contains a covenant on the part of the lessee to deliver up the premises on the

determination of the tenancy. But,even when such express stipulation is absent, tenant is under an implied covenant to restore possession of the premises to landlord on determination of the tenancy. This implied covenant is recognised in S.108(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides that in the absence of contract or local usage to the contrary, lessee is bound, on determination of the lease, to put the lessor in possession of the property. When lease is determined on any of the modes provided in S. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, landlord is entitled to possession of the property under the implied covenant contained in the lease. It is this implied covenant that is sought to be enforced by landlord when he files a suit for eviction of the tenant. When there are two or more co-owners, this implied covenant would obviously be in favour of all of them and they would be jointly entitled to enforce it vide S.43 of the Contract Act. They must, therefore, all join in filing a suit to recover possession except when, by a special provision of law, co-owners are permitted to sue through some or one of the members. This decision was impliedly approved by Supreme Court in Sri. Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others (A.I.R.1976 S.C. 2335). Therefore, that must be accepted as the law.

5. But both decisions accepted some exceptions to the rule. Tenant, who is in possession of the property after determination of the lease, cannot be equated to a trespasser. He will be a tenant, at sufferance or holding over, as the case may be.