A co-owner of a property is competent to institute an eviction petition independently without joining other co-owners, and a tenant who has admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in pleadings is estopped from denying such relationship or the landlord's title.

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal No.2 (Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.5), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, as well as the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a rent application was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting, nuisance, causing damage to the rented premises, and bona fide requirement of the landlord. Apart from the aforesaid grounds, it was also pleaded that the petitioner-tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and, therefore, was liable to be evicted.

3. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide judgment dated 14.09.2022, allowed the rent application and granted a certificate of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord and availability of suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner-tenant.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I; however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.04.2025.

5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Tribunals below, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlord was required to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence and could not be permitted to take advantage of any alleged weakness in the defence of the petitioner. The burden to establish the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship squarely lay upon the respondent, which the respondent failed to discharge.

6.1. According to the petitioner, the respondent-landlord is the owner of only 1/4th share in the suit property and, therefore, the certificate of eviction passed in respect of the entire premises is ex facie perverse, illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Tribunal. It was urged that no decree for eviction of the whole property could have been passed at the instance of a co-sharer without establishing exclusive ownership or authority from the remaining co-owners.

6.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that merely payment of rent cannot establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore prayed that the judgment passed by both the learned Courts below may be quashed and set aside and the rent application of the respondent may be dismissed.

6.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original petition was filed against three respondents namely; M/s M.D. Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Dashrath Singh Shekhawat & Ajeet Singh Shekhawat. Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the rent application, non-applicants No.2 & 3; Dashrath Singh Shekhawat and Ajeet Singh Shekhawat, respectively were deleted from the array of the parties. He submits that actually Dashrath Singh Shekhawat and Ajeet Singh Shekhawat were the tenants and therefore, there is no landlord tenant relationship between the present petitioner and the respondent.

6.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments to buttress his arguments:

(i) Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority vs M/s Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills; AIR 1998 SC 2352.

(ii) Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors.;1987 (2) SCC 555.

(iii) Harshvardhan Chokkani vs Bhupendra N. Patel & Ors.; 2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments 95 (SC).

(iv) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs.; AIR 2008 SC 2139.

(v) Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs Man