Back
2015 Supreme(All) 1774
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Geeta Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Latif - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 590 of 2010
Decided On : 13-01-2015
For the Petitioner: Sheshadri Trivedi and Satish Trivedi.
For the Respondents: Manish Dev Singh.
One of the co-landlords can terminate the tenancy and maintain a suit for eviction with the assumed consent of the other co-landlords, and a notice terminating tenancy need not be from all the co-landlords.
Headnote:
Revision - Landlord/Tenant Dispute - Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, Section 25 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106 - General Clauses Act, Section 13 - Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Nand Lal Girdhari Lal and another v. Gulam Nabi Jamal Bhai Motor Wala and others AIR 1973 Gujrat 131 - Gurdayal Saran Prasad v. District Judge, Dehradun and others 1997 (2) ARC 535 - Akhilesh Singh v. Vijay Singh and others 2004 (1) ARC 213 - Smt. Indra Sharam and others v. Lt. Colonel S.K. Sharma 2005 (4) AWC 3122 - Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath AIR 1976 SC 2335 - Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak AIR 1977 SC 1599 - S.P. Roychaudhary v. Kamla Bala Roy AIR 1978 SC 835 - Dhanna Lal v. Kalawati Bai AIR (2002) 6 SCC 16 - Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain AIR 2006 SC 1471 - India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and others v. Bhagabandei Agrawalla and others 2004 Alld. CJ 767 : (2004) 3 SCC 178 - Rang Nath v. State of U.P. 1984 (1) ARC 642 - Full Bench of this court in 1987 (1) ARC 281 - Girraj Kishore v. Triloki Nath Vimal AIR 1988 Alld. 305 - Legal position summarized in the judgment
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenants, but the court dismissed the suit on the ground that the notice terminating tenancy was not given on behalf of all the landlords.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for eviction by one of the co-landlords is maintainable and the notice terminating tenancy was valid, as the co-landlord acted as an agent of the other co-landlords.
Issues: Validity of the notice terminating tenancy and maintainability of the suit for eviction by one of the co-landlords.
Ratio Decidendi: One of the co-landlords can terminate the tenancy and maintain a suit for eviction with the assumed consent of the other co-landlords, and a notice terminating tenancy need not be from all the co-landlords.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits by treating the notice as valid and the suit by one of the co-landlords as maintainable.
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. The revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 has been preferred by the landlord/landlady against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge in exercise of powers of Small Causes Court dismissing the suit of the landlord for eviction of the tenants on the ground that the notice terminating tenancy is defective and invalid.
2. The dispute in the suit giving rise to this revision is regarding shop No. 54 Civil Lines, Bareilly. In the said shop the tenants are doing business in the name of M/s. Alishan Furniture. The tenancy was determined by the landlord vide notice dated 14.2.2006 which was served upon them on 18.2.2006. The notice not only determined the tenancy but demanded arrears of rent from 15.9.2004 to 24.3.2006.
3. It seems that the landlord after determining tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short T.P. Act) instituted the suit for eviction of the tenants. The tenants objected to the suit inter alia on one of the grounds that the notice determining tenancy had not been given on behalf of all the landlords therefore, the suit for their eviction by one of the co-landlords is not maintainable.
4. The court below held that the landlord who instituted the suit is not the only landlord and he alone can not determine the tenancy. The notice is not on behalf of all the landlords and therefore the suit is not maintainable.
5. I have heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the landlord. He has attacked the impugned judgment and order by arguing that a suit for eviction of the tenants after determination of tenancy by one of the co-landlords is maintainable. The court below manifestly erred in law in dismissing the suit ignoring the series of decisions on this aspect.
6. Sri Anoop Trivedi has defended the judgment of the court below on the reasoning which has been recorded therein and has submitted that as the tenancy can not be terminated by one co-landlords alone and therefore the suit is not maintainable.
7. The shop in dispute was of Mathura Prasad. On his death it was inherited by his wife Smt. Sarla Prasad, two sons Jaswant Prasad and Ajit Prasad and the daughter Km. Geeta Prasad as co-owners landlords. Therefore, there is no dispute to the finding that Km. Geeta Prasad is not the only owner of the shop in dispute.
8. It is admitted that Km. Geeta Prasad alone issued notice dated 14.2.2006 determining the tenancy and the said notice was not on behalf of the other co-owners and landlords. She alone had filed the suit without arraying or impleading the other co-owners/landlords as a party. She in her cross examination has accepted that she had not taken any permission or consent of her brothers and mother i.e. the other co-owners/landlords for instituting the suit, as she felt there was no legal necessity for doing so.
9. In the factual back-ground of the case and in the light of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respective parties the only question which crops up for my consideration is whether one of the co-landlords can determine the tenancy and maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant on the basis of such determination/notice without impleading the other co-owners.
10. Section 106 of the T.P. Act provides that a lease of immovable property for any other purpose other than the agriculture or manufacturing shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on part of either lessor or lessee by 30 days notice in its applicability to the State of U.P.
11. The lease as such can be terminated by the lessor or the lessee by notice in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it as provided under Sub-Section 4 of Section 106 of the T.P. Act. Therefore, the requirement of the notice is that it should be signed by or on behalf of the person giving it.
12. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act provides that in all Central Acts and Regulations unless there is anything repugn
