A co-owner can file for eviction without needing consent from other co-owners, and subsequent purchasers cannot challenge eviction petitions filed before their acquisition.

Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned two revision petitions as common issue and facts are involved. For convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.6289 of 2019.

2. By way of CR-6289-2019, challenge has been made to an order dated 10.09.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, affirming the order dated 08.02.2019, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kapurthala, whereby, eviction petition filed at the instance of the respondent-landlord, pertaining to a shop situated in Old Dana Mandi, Phagwara bearing Municipal NO. BXL-111/7 has been allowed.

3. Briefly stating, facts of the aforementioned case are that respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner qua a shop situated in Old Dana Mandi Phagwara, by making averments that he is co-owner/landlord of the building including the shop in dispute, to the extent of 2/5th share by virtue of sale deed dated 23.10.2009 executed by the previous co-owners, namely, Smt. Krishana Sood and Chander Kanta Ram Pal. The shop in dispute formed part of said building and there was a specific condition in the sale deed that respondent shall be entitled to the 2/5th share of the rent of this shop which was let out to the petitioner-tenant originally by Savitri Devi being the previous owner, on a monthly rent of Rs.667/-, besides House Tax. Eviction was sought on the grounds of personal and bonafide necessity, arrears of rent and the shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

4. Subsequent events in this case which were of important consideration are that Rachna Sudhir and Tilak Sundari Jain vide sale deed dated 12.10.2010 purchased share to the extent of 148.4 square feet out of 296.8 square feet i.e. 1/5th area of double storey two shops comprising part of area of 8.14 marlas (1484 Square Feet) on the ground floor for value and consideration of Rs.3,20,000/-, and thus became co-owners to the extent of 1/5th share. Similarly, Rajni Jain and Nidhi Jain vide sale deed dated 11.10.2013 purchased share to the extent of 3.26 marlas (593.60 Square Feet) i.e. 2/5th area of double storey two shops comprising part of area of 8.14 marlas (1484 Square Feet) for value and consideration of Rs.55,84,500/-and thus, became co-owners to the extent of 2/5th share. These subsequent purchasers were in blood/close relationship with the tenant-petitioner and for obvious reasons, they opposed the eviction of the tenant. These subsequent purchasers even filed applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading them as parties in two separate eviction petitions, but the same were dismissed by the Rent Controller.

5. From the tenant side, a primary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the eviction petition that the property still being joint, consent of the other co-sharers was not taken before filing the same. Learned Rent Controller relying upon “M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt)”, reported as 2004(1) RCR (Rent) 154 : (2004) 3 SCC 178 held the petition to be maintainable and vide order dated 08.02.2019 allowed the same only on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity. Appeal filed by the petitionertenant against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, vide order dated 10.09.2019 while affirming eviction the order dated 08.02.2019, passed by the Rent Controller, Kapurthala.

6. In the present revision petition as well, the entire thrust by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been on the maintainability of the eviction petition and no submissions have been made regarding merits of personal and bonafide necessity of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide sale deeds dated 12.10.2010 and 11.10.2013, 1/5th and 2/5th share of the joint property was purchased by other persons who categorically expressed, in application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, before the rent co