Co-owner cannot object to eviction at appellate stage. Memorandum of understanding does not nullify bonafide necessity. Tenant cannot raise objection at subsequent stage if not raised earlier. Non-compliance of mandatory provisions cannot defeat landlord's right.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this judgment, Civil Revision Nos.6275, 6278 of 2014, 7492 and 7493 of 2015 shall stand disposed of. Counsel for the parties are also agreed that all these four revision can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

Civil Revision No.6275 of 2014 and 6278 of 2014 have been filed by the landlords, whereas Civil Revision Nos. 7492 and 7493 of 2015 have been filed by tenant.

2. Dispute in both the revision petitions is with respect to two adjoining premises, one originally owned by Smt. Pritam Devi (daughter-inlaw) and second owned by Smt. Bhagwanti (mother-in-law). Shop numbers are 13 and 14, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala. Both the shops were constructed separately and leased out in favour of tenant Subhash Sahoonja at Rs. 6000/- per month each for each shop with a provision for increase of rent by 15% after every three years. In both the petitions, eviction has been sought of the tenant on the grounds of non payment of rent, material structural alteration, resulting into material impairment in the value and utility of the building and bonafide requirement for the son of one of the co-owner-landlady-Smt. Prabha Sehgal.

3. Tenant contested the petition by pleading that he is a co-sharer in the property having purchased a share in the property. He further pleaded that relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end. It was further pleaded that landlady-petitioner had also entered into an oral agreement to sell and suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell is pending. Tenant also contested the petition on the ground that bonafide requirement of the son of the landlady, Anupam Sehgal is not genuine as he has sold his share.

4. Learned Rent Controller after appreciation of the evidence ordered eviction of the tenant after recording a finding that there is no merger of tenancy in the ownership as respondent-tenant has not purchased entire property and in absence of purchase of the entire share, there can be no merger. Hence, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of non payment of rent, structural alteration as well as on bonafide personal necessity of the son of the landlady. It may be noted that suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell filed by the tenant was dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. Tenant filed appeal in both the cases. During the pendency of the appeal, tenant filed two applications, one Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement and another under Order 41 Rule 27 for permission to lead additional evidence. Both the applications were allowed vide order dated 09.12.2010 and the learned Appellate Authority after framing an additional issue sought report of the Rent Controller. Additional issue as framed was with respect to the plea taken by the tenant that whether entire premises used under the name and style of Handyman's Beer Bar and Restaurant, which was depicted as Shop Nos.13 and 14 as one and indivisible unit, if so, its effect. Rent Controller after permitting the parties to lead evidence, submitted a report and held that both the premises are separate premises.

6. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the co-owner who was a purchaser of an undivided share also filed an application for impleadment and objected to the continuance of eviction proceedings. Said application was dismissed against which a civil revision was filed in the High Court but no stay was granted.

7. On 02.12.2012, i.e. during the proceedings before the appellate authority, all the co-owners including landlords in both the petitions, tenant, his wife and Rattan Jaiswal and Kushal Jaiswal entered into a memorandum of family settlement. It was agreed that Smt. Prabha Sehgal and Urmil Kaushal shall receive sale consideration to the extent of 70% of their share in both the shops and remaining 30% of their share will be paid to Subhash Sahoonja being tenant in possession towards premium for his occupation. It was further agreed that S