A co-owner is entitled to seek eviction under S.11(3) of the Act for their own occupation, as they are considered as much an owner of the property as a sole owner.

1. An order of eviction on the ground under S.11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Act 2 of 1965 (for short 'the Act') has been passed by the Rent Control Court. It was confirmed in appeal and a revision under S.20 of the Act became unsuccessful. The building originally belonged to one Neelakantan Nair, which on his death had devolved on his widow and five children. They filed the application in the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction on the ground that the building is bona fide needed for the occupation of one of them (the 4th respondent) to start a business in automobile spare parts. The said claim is found to be bona fide by all the three authorities below and thus the tenant is now faced with an order of eviction.

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner (tenant) in this revision is this: The ground under S.11 (3) of the Act can be availed of only by a landlord who is entitled to possession of the building in his own exclusive right, and it is not available to a co-owner as he cannot exclude the other co-owners from possession. To bolster up the above contention the learned counsel has relied on the following observation of the Supreme Court in M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal (A.I.R.1981 S C. 1113):

"The expression landlord could, therefore, mean a person who is the owner of the building and who has a right to remain in occupation and actual possession of the building to the exclusion of everyone else."

According to the learned counsel, the position would have been different if all the co-owners bona tide require the building for their common use, or if there is only a sole owner and he requires it for his own use, or if the building is needed for the occupation of a member of the landlord's family who is a dependant on him. When the building is owned by more persons than one according to the learned counsel, an order of eviction to accommodate one of the co-owners is not what is envisaged in the ground under S.11(3) of the Act. I shall now consider the correctness of the above contention.

3. S.11 of the Act enumerates the different grounds for which a landlord is entitled to apply to the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction. The ground of the landlord's bona fide need for his own occupation is included in S.11 (3) of the Act. That sub-section is subject to four provisos, but, for the purpose of this case, none of them is relevant. The sub-section postulates two limbs for the bona fide need of the landlord. The first is the need for "his own occupation" and the second is "for the occupation by any member of his family dependant on him". The second limb is also not relevant in this case and therefore no consideration regarding that point is necessary for the disposal of this revision. Shorn of those portions which are unnecessary in this context, S.11 (3) of the Act can be read as follows:

"A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation."

Here, the need envisaged is the need of the landlord for his own occupation. A landlord as defined in S.2 (3) of the Act includes "a person who is entitled to receive the rent of a building", whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others. The landlord includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian. The very wide language used in the definition of the word landlord, there is no doubt, takes a co-owner of a building also who is entitled to receive the rent. It is not disputed before me that a co-owner is entitled to receive rent of a building. A property can be owned by one person, or at the same time by different persons. Duplicate ownership is a legally recognised concept and co-ownership involves the undivided integrity of what is own