A co-owner of a property who is the sole lessor of an accommodation can determine the tenancy of the tenant and file a suit for eviction without joining the other co-owners.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs application in revision directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-6-76 passed by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri allowing the Revision filed by the defendant-opposite party and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant for ejectment and for arrears of rent from a certain accommodation, which had been let out to the defendant opposite party.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are these. The plaintiff-applicant filed an application under section 3 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to file a suit for eviction of the defendant-opposite party on the ground that he needed the accommodation for his personal use. After considerable litigation, the plaintiff-applicant was granted permission by the State Government under Section 7-F of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter, the plaintiff-applicant filed the present suit on the basis of the permission granted to him under section 3 of the aforesaid Act. The defendant-opposite party contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of only the plaintiff-applicant inasmuch as his brother Sri Mahesh Charan Mowar had also half share in the house, arid that he having died, his heirs, namely, his widow, daughter and son were also the co-owners of the accommodation and they having not joined in the suit, the suit was incompetent. It was also asserted in the written statement that the notice determining the tenancy was given only by the plaintiff-applicant and not by the other co-owner, and consequently, the defendant-opposite partys lease had not been determined under Section 106 of the T. P. Act.

( 3 ) BEFORE the trial court, the principal question which fell for determination was whether the defendant-opposite party had been inducted into the accommodation as tenant by the plaintiff-applicant or both the plaintiff and his brother Mahesh Charan Mowar. The trial court upon an elaborate consideration of the voluminous evidence on record including admission of the defendant-opposite party came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-applicant was the sole lessor and that the accommodation in dispute had been let out solely by the plaintiff-applicant and not by his brother Mahesh Charan Mowar.

( 4 ) HAVING come to the conclusion that the defendant-applicant had been inducted solely by the plaintiff-applicant, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suit at the instance of the plaintiff-applicant alone was maintainable, and that for the same reason, the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was also valid. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED, the defendant-applicant filed a Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small cause Courts Act. The learned District Judge hearing the revision held that both Ram Charan mowar and Mahesh Charan Mowar being co-owners of the accommodation in dispute, the suit at the instance of Ram Charan Mowar i. e. only one of the two co-owners was not maintainable. The learned District Judge addressed himself mainly to the determination of the question as to whether Mahesh Charan Mowar had also a right, title or interest in the house and having come to the conclusion that Mahesh Charan Mowar and after him his heirs were also the owners of the house in suit, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable as the heirs of Mahesh Charan Mowar had neither joined in the suit nor in the notice under section 106 of the T. P. Act The learned District Judge accordingly allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the finding that the suit was not maintainable.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED, the plaintiff-applicant has filed the present Revision.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that the view of the lower revisional court that the suit at the instance of the applicant is not maintainable is unsustainable and tha