Maintainability of petition filed by one co-owner for eviction.

The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord applied for eviction on the ground that the premises was required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The trial Court held that the petitioner before the Rent Controller is not competent to maintain the petition as he is one of the joint co-owners and dismissed it. On appeal, the appellate Court held that the petition is maintainable and ordered a remand to the Rent Controller for disposal on merits. This petition is filed by the tenant against the said order of remand.

2. The father of the respondent herein had settled the house property on the respondent herein and his three brothers, by means of a settlement deed dated 14th July, 1966. The respondent was named as the manager. The father also directed the tenant to pay the rent to the eldest of the four sons, namely the respondent herein, who was in management of the property. In the petition it was also alleged that the building is old and in a dilapidated condition and portions of the roofing are in such a bad state that they are likely to fall down any time and is thus a danger to the safety of the occupants. The landlord further stated that he required the building to pull it down and put up a new structure on new and modern lines to make the building more useful and profitable to the respondent herein and his brothers on whom the property had been settled. In the counter statement, the tenant raised the objection that the petition is not maintainable, as on his own showing, the petitioner before the Rent Controller was only a co-owner along with his three other brothers. He did not controvert the statement of the landlord that the demolition and reconstruction was for the benefit of himself and his brothers. It is also not in dispute that the tenant attorned the tenancy to the petitioner (landlord) hefore the Rent Controller and was paying rent to him. On the facts, the question arises whether the petitioner before the Rent Controller could maintain the application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement for himself and his brothers for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

3. The definition of the word ‘landlord’ in section 2 (6) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, may be extracted:

“ ‘Landlord’ includes the person who is receiving or 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 or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant.”

Section 10 (8) of the Act says:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in this section no person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord, be entitled to apply for the eviction of a tenant.”

Section 10 (8), imposes a restriction on a class of persons who are included within the definition of the word ‘landlord’. In the case of such class of persons, included in section 10 (8) a petition for eviction can only be filed with the previous written consent of the landlord. Now the contention on behalf of the tenant is that sub-section (8) would include all persons who receive rent or are entitled to receive rent on their behalf as well as on behalf of others, i.e., subsection (8) would be applicable to persons who may be co-owners that are collecting rents on behalf of other co-owners as. well, for, the contention runs, that so far as the collection of rent on behalf of the other co-owners is concerned, it is only in his authority as an agent. In order to understand as to what classes of the landlords mentioned in the definition are excluded in sub-section (8), it is necessary to look into the definition of ‘landlord ‘. There are several classes of persons included in the definition. It includes persons w