The legal principle established is that a co-owner/landlord cannot file a suit for eviction against a tenant if other co-owners object, and a tenant who purchased the property from a co-owner need not file a suit for partition and separate possession.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 29-11-2006 passed by the First Addl. District Judge, Damoh, in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2006, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16-2-2005 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Damoh in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2004 whereby it was declared that the suit property was self-acquired property of Krishna Rao and after his death his heirs are co-owners of the property and the appellants are occupying the suit premises as a tenant and they were directed to vacate the suit premises as against them, grounds of eviction under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act have been found to be proved and further directed to pay arrears of rent and after delivering the possession, shall not make any interference in the possession except following the due process of law.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of present appeal, briefly stated, are that plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 filed the suit for ejectment of the appellants from suit House bearing Nagar Palika No. 180/07/185/08 for possession, arrears of rent, declaration and permanent injunction. It is averred that disputed house and the vacant land was in the ownership of Krishnarao along with other two houses. In this case, there is a dispute between heirs of Krishnarao and the appellants with regard to the suit premises. The appellants who have purchased the suit premises are claiming their title on the strength of the sale-deed executed by respondents No. 5 to 7 as heirs of Madangopal, who was son of Krishnarao. The property in dispute was self-acquired property of Krishnarao who died in the year 1967.

3. It is not disputed that Krishnarao solemnized two marriages. His first wife was Shakuntala and out of the said wedlock two sons viz. Madangopal and Baburao, were born. Madangopal died in the year 1987 leaving behind his widow Urmila, defendant No. 1, Sanjay defendant No. 2 and Vishnu, defendant No. 3. Baburao died in the year 1993 leaving behind his widow Padma, defendant No. 7, and two sons namely Rohit, defendant No. 8 and Rahul, defendant No. 9. After the death of Shakuntala, Krishnarao married with Shewantibai and out of the said wedlock plaintiffs Govindrao, Chanda, Tarabai and Bhawna were born. Shewantibai expired in the year 1993. Genealogical tree of heirs of Krishnarao, is quoted here in below :-

4. That, initially the suit was filed by plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 namely Govindrao, Chanda, Tara, Bhawna and defendants No. 7 to 9 namely Padma, Rohit and Rahul. But, during the pendency of the suit Padma sold her share to the appellants in the year 2001, therefore, during the trial they were transported as defendants No. 7 to 9. Govindrao has also withdrawn his claim in the suit property; but, his name continues as the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs Tara, Chanda and Bhawna is that the suit premises was the self-acquired property of Krishnarao and appellant/defendant Leeladevi entered into the suit premises as tenant and paying rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month to Shewantibai and after the death of Shewantibai she did not pay the rent. The appellant No. 1 is son of appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 is her husband. On demand of notice no arrears of rent was paid and the suit premises are required bona fidely for use of the plaintiffs. Appellants/ defendants No. 4 to 6 have started claiming that they have