One of the many co-landlords can singly maintain an application for ejectment against his tenant under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Can one of the co-landlords alone maintain an application for ejectment against his tenant under S.13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is the significant question which has been re-agitated in this reference to the Division Bench.

2. Mathura Dass petitioner who admittedly was one of the co-owners of the demised premises had preferred an ejectment application under S.13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) before the Rent Controller at Fazilka. The primary ground on which it was sought to be pressed was the non-payment of rent by the tenant and that the premises were required for the personal occupation of the landlord. The ejectment application was resisted on behalf of the respondent-tenant and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds taken in the application?

2. Whether the application is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Relief.

On issue No.1 the Rent Controller came to the finding that the tenant was in arrears of rent but held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he needed the demised premises for his bona fide use and occupation. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the petitioner with the observations that it was well-settled that one of the landlords of the demised premises can by himself make an application for ejectment without making the other landlords a party thereto. In view of the finding on the two issues, the ejectment application was allowed with costs.

3. On appeal the finding on issue No.1 was virtually not challenged and only that on issue No.2 was assailed. The learned Appellate Authority relying primarily on the recent judgement in Bir Bhan V/s. Kuldip Parkash, (1979) 1 Rent LR 312, held that only one of the co-owners could not maintain an ejectment application without impleading the other co-owners as well and consequently reversed the finding on issue No.2 and dismissed the ejectment application.

4. The present revision first came up before my learned brother Dhillon J. sitting singly. Noticing some conflict of precedents on the question whether one of the many co-landlords alone could maintain the ejectment application he referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench.

5. As would appear hereinafter there is no paucity of precedents both direct and by way of analogy on the point. Nevertheless it is refreshing to examine the matter on principle and on the particular language of the statute because this aspect does not seem to have been adequately considered in some of the judgements relied upon by the parties.

6. What first meets the eye herein is the definition of the word landlord under Section 2(c) of the Act which is in the following terms :-

"2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.- (a) and (b).... ... ...

(c) landlord means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land, whether on his own account or on behalf of for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord :

(d) to (g)............."

It seems manifest from the above that the definition is a wide ranging one including within its sweep a number of persons. Particularly noticeable in the fact that the landlord under the Act is not necessarily confined to the owner or the owners of the premises. Persons who may lay no claim of title to the property would nevertheless come within the wide amplitude of the definition. Equally patent it is that the statute herein does not necessarily visualise a single landlord but also plurality thereof. Once that is so one can now turn to S.13(3)(a) of the Act which is in the following terms