A tenant holding possession under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 cannot be termed a trespasser and all the co-owners are required to file a suit against him for eviction.

1. - On 6-4-1970, Lalmohammed and Ahsan Ali (since deceased) filed a suit against defendant Shivbratlal (petitioner before us) in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur, for arrears of rent and ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent.

2. During the pendency of the suit, Lalmobammed expired on October 23, 1971, plaintiff Ahsan Ali filed an application for bringing the two daughters of Lalmohammed on record as legal representatives of Lal Mohammed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another application dated 6-2-1973 wherein it was mentioned that Lalmohammed, by a registered deed dated October 14, 1971, relinquished his rights, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Absan Ali and as such, he had been the absolute owner of the property in dispute and there was no necessity of bringing the legal representatives of Lalmohammed on record. It was further prayed that Lalmohammed's name may be erased from the array of parties. Absan Ali did not file a copy of the relinquishment deed. He, however, urged before the learned Munsif that after the termination of the tenancy, the defendant became trespasser and as such, one of the co-owners could file a suit for possession against the defendant and as such, he was entitled to continue the suit without bringing the legal representatives of Lalmohammed on record. In support of the above contention, he placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramnarain v. Kishorilal, 1963 R.L.W. 459 application was opposed by the defendant and ultimately learned Munsif, vide order dated 22-1l-1973, allowed the application filed by Ahsan Ali.

3. Being aggrieved by the above-noted order, the defendant filed a revision before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision No. 522 of 1973 which came up for decision before Hon'ble Sen, J. (as he then was). The learned Judge doubted the correctness of decision relied upon by the learned Munsif and as such, referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for forming a larger Bench. Thus, this case comes before us.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed on record a certified copy along with a photostat copy the registered relinquishment deed dated 14-10-1971 executed by Lalmohammed in favour of Ahsan Ali and his mother Smt. Asiyan, widow of Shri Ramzan Ali. The effect of the relinquishment deed has not been considered by the learned Order 12 be open 10 to Munsif because it was not produced before hm and such, it the concerned party to make an application C.P.C., if so advised.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that a tenant who holds possession under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), holds possession as statutory tenant and the termination of tenancy is not admissible under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A statutory tenant cannot be termed to be a trespasser. That apart, the word 'tenant' as defined in Section 3 sub-cl. (vii) of the Act, reads as under:-

"3 (vii) "Tenant" means:-

(a) The person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or, but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act : and

(b) ... ..."
A bare perusal of the above noted section itself shows that even after termination of the tenancy, a tenant who holds possession over the land in the capacity of a tenant remains a tenant and does not become a trespasser. In view of the changed definition of 'tenant' by the Amendment Act, the ruling relied upon by the trial court is of no avail to the respondent. If, after determination of the tenancy, the tenant remains in possession and the landlord accepts rent from him or otherwise assents to his continuanc