K. JAGANNATH SHETTY, C. J.

( 1 ) AMID the divergent views of this Court in Devi Charan v. III Addl. Dist. Judge, 1980 All Rent Cas 381 : (1980 0 UPLT 143) and Rang Nath v. State of U. P. , (1984) 1 All Rent Cas 642 : (1984 0 Alllj 455) a Bench of this Court has referred the case for decision by a larger Bench. The facts are not disputed. They may briefly be stated as follows : gopal Das (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4089 of 1981) is a tenant occupying premises No. CK 21/40, situate in Thatheri Bazar, Varanasi. It was a property belonging to joint family consisting of Murlidhar Sah (the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5240 of 1981) and some others. The rent payable thereon was Rs. 175/- per month. On June 24, 1974, there was a partition in the joint family by which the tenanted premises were allotted to two co-parceners Northern portion fell to the share of Murlidhar Sah while the Sourthern portion fell to the share of his brother Brij Chandra Sah. After the partition, the tenant was called upon to pay the proportionate rent to the respective persons. The tenant agreed and accordingly has been paying Rs. 100/- to Murlidhar Sah and Rs. 75/- to Brij Chandra Sah in regard to their respective portions.

( 2 ) ON October 8, 1974, Murlidhar Sah filed an application under S. 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (the act) for release of the northern portion of the premises which fell to his share. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated March 23, 1980), allowed the application in part. The tenant was ordered to be evicted from one hall in the first floor and from the entire second floor. Both the parties appealed to the District Judge, Varanasi to the extent they were aggrieved. On February 6, 1981, learned District Judge allowed partly the appeal of the landlord directing the tenant to vacate the entire first floor also. He however, did not accede to the request of the landlord for releasing the ground floor. Consequently, he rejected the appeal preferred by the tenant.

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the appellate order, the tenant has filed Writ Petition No. 4089 of 1981 while the landlord, Murlidhar Sah, has preferred Writ Petition No. 5240 of 1981.

( 4 ) THE question raised before us is that the application for eviction filed by Murlidhar Sah alone was not maintainable without impleading the other erstwhile co-sharers of the family.

( 5 ) IN Devi Charans case (1980 All Rent Cas 381 : 1980 0 UPLT 143), R. R. Rastogi, J. , observed (para 9)"it would, thus, be seen that in so far as the law in this behalf is concerned, it is settled that the transfer of a portion of the property under tenancy does not result in the splitting up of the tenancy and the transferor or the transferee cannot claim ejectment of the tenant from the respective portions of the accommodation of which they become the lessors. The effect is that instead of one lessor there come into existence two lessors. They, of course, are entitled to receive rent from the tenant to the extent of their share in the property under the tenancy. The conduct of the tenant in agreeing to pay rent to the different lessors according to their shares would not imply any fresh tenancy. The tenancy can be split up only when the transferor, the transferee and the lessee agree on it. In other words it is only when a fresh contract of lease comes into existence with the consent of the parties concerned, the splitting up of tenancy can take place. "

( 6 ) THIS decision proceeds on the ground that unless there is a fresh tenancy between the parties, the application for eviction filed by one co-owner is not maintinable. In fact the basis for this decision was the earlier unreported decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 2693 of 1967, Sahu Hari Krishna Khanna v. Government and others. Both these decisions, in our opinion are no longer good law.

( 7 ) IN Rang Nath v. State of U. P. , (1984 0 Alllj 455) one of us (B. N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document