Petition for eviction filed by one owner not maintainable.

1. What falls for consideration in this revision petition, preferred by a tenant, is whether one of the two co-owners of a building is entitled to independently file a petition against a tenant to seek his eviction on one or more of the grounds mentioned in S. 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without the consent or knowledge of the other co-owner. The facts of the case are as follows—

2. The petition premises, which is a residential building was originally owned by one Rayappa Pillai and the petitioner became a tenant under him. After the death of Rayappa Pillai, his nephews, viz., the respondent and his brother succeeded to the property. By arrangement, the respondent and his brother were collecting in equal share the rent of Rs. 27 paid by the petitioner for the building. In that situation, the respondent filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Salem, praying for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent and furthermore, he bona fide required the building for his sons occupation. To the said petition, the respondent did not implead his brother as a party, nor did he put forth a contention that the eviction of the tenant was sought for on behalf of the other co-owner also. The tenant, by means of an additional counter-affidavit, raised an objection to the maintainability of the petition without the other co-owner also being a party to the proceedings. The Rent Controller relying upon Shanmugha Appa v. Abdul Hameed 1973 1 M.L.J 241=84 L.W. 103 sustained the objection of the tenant and dismissed the petition. On the landlord filing an appeal, the Principal Subordinate Judge of Salem, who is the appellate authority, allowed the appeal and held that the petition was maintainable and that on merits, the landlord was entitled to get an order of eviction in his favour. It is as against this order, the tenant has come forward with this revision.

3. Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that inasmuch as the petition building is owned by two persons, and they had also been receiving the rent in equal moieties from the tenant it is not open to one of the co-owners to file an independent action against the tenant and seek his eviction In support of his argument, the learned counsel relies on Kotiah v. Abdul Aziz Khan and Abdul Rahman v. Ganga Chandrasekhara 1978 2 M.L.J. 234=91 L.W. 519. On the other hand, Mr. T. S. Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition, though filed by one of two co-owners, is fully maintainable, and as such the tenant is not entitled to put forth the contention that in the absence of the other co-owner, the respondent herein is not competent to file the eviction action all by himself. Mr. Subramamyam relies on Shanmugha Appa v. Abdul Hameed 1973 1 M.L.J. 244=86 L.W. 103 and Sriram Pasrich v. Jaganath 1976 4 S.C.C. 184 in support of his contentions.

4. Before considering the arguments of the learned counsel, it will be useful to refer to the definition of ‘landlord’ in S. 2 (6) of the Act, and interdiction contained in S. 10 (8) of the Act on agents acting as landlords from instituting eviction proceedings without the written consent of the landlord. S. 2 (6) reads as follows—

“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 left to a tenant;

Explanation:.”

S. 10 (8) reads as follows—

“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 fo