Tenant acquiring a moiety of interest of landlord.

K.B.N. Singh, C.J.

1. This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, reversing the order of the Rent Controller (Addl. Dist. Munsif), Erode, dismissing the application of the landlords for eviction of the tenants-respondents.

2. The petition for eviction was filed by the admitted landlord, Namachivayam, for the eviction of the respondents under the provisions of Section 10(2)(ii)(a), (b) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), from premises door No. 262 Brough Road, Erode. The said premises was leased out to respondents 1 and 2 on 17th October, 1969, by the landlord Namachivayam, for a period of six years on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- for running a printing press. The rent was payable on the first of every Tamil Month. On 11th August 1975 the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 72 of 1975 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants-respondents 1 and 2, and the sub-tenants-respondents 3 to 5, inducted by respondents 1 and 2, on the grounds of (i) sub-letting without the consent of the landlord; (ii) putting the building to a different use from the one for which is was let out; and (iii) committing acts of waste. The petition for eviction was filed after a notice dated 24th June, 1975 terminating the tenancy. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the proceedings denying the allegations of sub-letting, putting the premises to a different use and acts of waste.

During the pendency of the proceedings Namachivayam, the original owner, died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 11.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings respondents 1 and 2 purchased a 11/60 share in the property from the third petitioner, Arunachalam, by a registered sale deed dated 23rd October, 1977(Exhibit B-14). Based on this purchase, respondents 1 and 2 contended that by virtue of this purchase they had become co-owners and hence were not liable to be evicted from the premises.

4. The Rent Controller recorded the following findings:

(i) that the tenants-Respondents 1 and 2 had sub-let the premises to respondents 3 to 5. without the written consent of the landlord.

(ii) that respondents 1 and 2 had put the building to a different use from the one for which it had been let out and

(iii) that they had committed acts of waste and materially impaired the value and utility of the premises.

5. The learned Rent Controller rejected the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that on their purchase of the 11/60 share they had become co-owners and that the lease in question had been extinguised. The Rent Controller accordingly passed an order of eviction.

6. The tenants-respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, who confirmed two of the three findings of the Rent Controller, namely, subletting without the consent of the landlord, and committing acts of waste. On the question of different user, it differed. The Appellate Authority however, came to the conclusion that by virtue of their purchase of the 11/60 share respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to be in possession as co-owners, and that the remedy open to the petitioners was to file a suit for partition and separate possession of their share and allowed the appeal. It is against this order the present civil revision petition was filed.

7. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge (Mohan, J), in view of the importance of the question involved, he referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. The question posed by the learned Judge is as follows:

Where the tenant purchases a fractional interest in the demised property, could he be called a co-owner so as to disentitle the original owner (landlord) to seek eviction under the Rent Control Act?

8. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that, where a tenant