A single suit can be filed by multiple landlords against one tenant for joint tenancies as long as the assertion of common interest is valid, even in absence of defence.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Hear Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the revision- applicant and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the landlord-respondent.

2. This revision application is directed against the final judgment and decree dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court in the suit of landlord-respondents in S.C.C. No.75 of 2013 for arrears of rent and ejectment.

3. It is an admitted position of fact between the parties that during pendency of the suit, the defence of the present petitioner was struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC by the order passed by the trial judge on 31.05.2016 which was unsuccessfully challenged at a higher forum. Thus, there was no defence available to the trial court while it tried the suit of the landlord-respondents.

4. The judgment passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court has been challenged on following grounds: (i) there being two separate tenancies in respect of two different plot numbers being Plots Nos.72/6-A and 72/6-B standing in the name of Ramesh Chawla and Rita Chawala as per own admission in the plaint taken in paragraph 2 thereof, a single suit in respect of two tenancies may be tenancy was executed in favour of the single tenant was not maintainable in view of the provisions as contained under Order 2 Rule 3 CPC and hence judgment and decree was bad; (ii) even if the defence was not available to the court, the court ought to have gone into the question of maintainability of the suit for there being absence of lawful notice at the instance of single landlord namely Ramesh Chawala through its power of attorney. According to him, no document was brought on record in the suit acknowledging any power of attorney executed by Smt. Rita Chawala in favour of Ramesh Chawala to have entitled him to execute power of attorney in favour of a third person and (iii) there is a manifest error in the findings arrived at by the trial judge treating the suit maintainable on the ground that in the will executed by late Ramesh Chawala, he admitted that both Ramesh Chawala and Rita Chawala were co-owners of plots with share of 50% each.

5. In support of his above submissions, learned counsel for the revision-applicant has taken the Court to the plaint allegations more especially, paragraph 2 thereof, the power of attorney executed by the Ramesh Chawala on behalf of his wife and in favour of Shiv Charan Singh Chauhan on 28.11.2011 and also a subsequent power of attorney executed after institution of suit proceedings by both husband and wife on 22.10.2013 in supersession to the earlier power of attorney and also the notice issued by the power of attorney holder on behalf of landlord dated 01.08.2013.

6. Mr. Sharma has taken the Court to the finding part of the judgment of the trial court on ground no.(i) in which it has dealt with the will executed by Ramesh Chawala and the case set up for eviction of the tenant on the premise that there existed jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant.

7. Meeting the above submissions, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- landlord placed a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jamiluddin v. Shamsuddin , 1999 (1) A.R.C. 46, in which suit for several causes of action against the same defendant was held to be maintainable by interpreting provisions relating to joinder of causes of action as prescribed for under Order II Rule 3 CPC. Mr. Singh has further reiterated that the plaint allegations in paragraphs 2 & 3 to be more specific in asserting that although there were two deeds of tenancy created but the tenancy with the conduct