Eviction-Joint property of landlord-Co-owner is competent to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Rent Act.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 8.11.2005 whereby the application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner was dismissed and consequently petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") filed by the respondent was allowed.

2. The respondent has sought ejectment of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he has purchased the property in the year 1996 and being a Non Resident Indian, he is entitled to seek ejectment as he is the owner of the premises for the last more than five years. In support of the averment that he is a Non Resident Indian, he has produced the notarized copy of passport which shows that he is residing in the United States of America and, therefore, the respondent is proved to be a Non Resident Indian. Still further, the respondent is a co-sharer in the property in dispute and, therefore, being a co-sharer he is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant as a owner of the entire property. After considering all the arguments raised by the petitioner, the application for leave to defend was found to be without any substance and the same was dismissed.

3. In the present revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent is only a co-sharer and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant. It is argued that since the respondent is not the exclusive owner of the property let out to the petitioner, therefore, eviction in a summary manner is not permissible, especially when the other co-sharers have sought ejectment of the petitioner under the ordinary law. It is further argued that such question whether a co-owner is entitled to seek eviction in a summary manner raises triable issue and, therefore, leave to defend should have been granted. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported as Kundan Singh v. Lal Singh (2004-3) 138 P.L.R. 530.

4. It is further argued that in a suit for partition between the co-sharers, a preliminary decree was passed. It is not known which portion will fall to the respondent in respect of which the respondent can seek eviction and, therefore, eviction order cannot be passed against the petitioner.

5. I am unable to agree with the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The question whether a co-owner is entitled to seek the benefit of summary eviction of a tenant came up for consideration before the I Hon ble Supreme Court in a decision reported as Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Ors. In the said case, a landlord within the meaning of Section 23-J, as contemplated in Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, sought ejectment of a tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the premises is required for bona fide use of sons of Smt. Kalawatibai. The principal issue considered by the I Hon ble Supreme Court was whether out of three co-landlords, one falling within the definition of "landlord" is entitled to have recourse to the provisions of Section 23-J, when the other two co-landlords do not fall within the definition of "landlord" in Section 23-J. The requirements pleaded is of all the landlords but it is the widow who could take advantage of the said provision, whether recourse to the forum of the Rent Controlling Authority is permissible. After considering the various judgments, Hon ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath; Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh , that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several