SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(MP) 399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T.S. Doabia, J.
Banke Lal
Vs.
Madho Prasad
C.R. 481 of 1997 (G)
Decided On: 14.07.1997

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. N.K. Jain, Advocate

A suit filed by joint owners for eviction of a tenant from different portions of the property is maintainable to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Headnote:

Eviction - Joint Ownership - Suit filed by joint owners for eviction of tenant - Whether maintainable

Fact of the Case:

The respondents, joint owners of a property, filed a suit seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner objected, stating that as there are two landlords seeking eviction from different portions, the suit is not maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit filed by joint owners for eviction of the tenant was maintainable, as it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was whether a suit filed by joint owners for eviction of the tenant from different portions of the property was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which held that when suit property is purchased by two separate persons by separate deeds, then a suit by all of them for eviction of the whole property is maintainable.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding it without merit and with no order as to costs.

ORDER

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. The brief facts for the purposes of this civil revision be noticed as under:

Madhoprashad and Chandraprakash, who figure as respondents in this petition have purchased the suit property. After purchasing the property, a suit was filed seeking eviction of Bankelal the present petitioner. So far as landlord, Madhoprashad is concerned, he sought eviction of the tenant from the premises purchased by him on the plea that these premises are required by him for starting the business of sale of steel and iron. So far as landlord, Chandraprakash, respondent no. 2 is concerned, he took a plea that he required the premises purchased by him for sale of coolers. The present petitioner put in appearance. He took an objection that as there are two landlords seeking without from different portions, therefore, the eviction suit is not maintainable. The precise objection taken was that both the landlords should pursue their remedies separately against the petitioner-tenant.

2. Thus, the question arises as to whether when suit property is purchased by two different persons in different portions under separate deeds, then suit filed by them jointly for eviction of the tenant is maintainable or not.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision given by this Court reported as Kanhaiyalal v. Keshodas, AIR 1961 M.P. 46. In this case, a suit for eviction by purchaser of the premises against two separate tenants was filed. This suit was held to be not maintainable. This case does not deal directly with the proposition and as a matter of fact, it presents the picture in a reverse position.

4. An authority of the Rajasthan High Court reported as M/s. Hariram Fatan Das v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1975 Raj 23, is nearer to the proposition which is propounded by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondents. In that case, it was held that when suit property is purchased by two separate persons by separate deeds, then a suit by all of them for eviction of the whole property is maintainable.

5. Independently of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court, I am of the opinion that the course which has been adopted by the landlords is a course which would lead to avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that such a course can be adopted.

6. Following the ratio of decision given by the Rajasthan High Court in M/s. Hariram Fatan Das's case (supra). I am of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court calls for no interference.

This petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top