KUNHALU Vs. BAPUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the tenant and respondents 1 to 3 are landlords. Transaction covered by Ext. P4 lease deed admittedly comes within the purview of rent control legislation. In R.C.P. No.13 of 1984 before Rent Control Court, Perintalmanna, respondents 1 to 3 sought to evict petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. Claim under S.11(3), on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation, was rejected. Eviction was allowed only on the ground of arrears of rent. In appeal, eviction was granted under S.11(3) also. That was confirmed in revision. Attempt is to get these orders vacated, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Grounds taken up are: i) Over and above respondents 1 to 3, there is another coowner also. Wife of the petitioner purchased share of that coowner. Hence respondents 1 to 3 alone are not entitled to evict him; ii) Ext. P4 must be considered as a permanent lease, which is not liable to be terminated, as there is a provision for renewal; and iii) Findings of the appellate and revisional courts, on bona fide need, are perverse justifying interference.

(3.) Law presumes that each and every coowner is as much in possession of the entire coownership property as any other coowner. So also, his possession is considered in law to be on behalf of other coowners also. Trespass into coownership property is a wrong against the possession of all coowners eventhough all may not be in physical possession. Rule is well settled that a coowner can, without representing coowners the other or without joining them, maintain an action to evict a trespasser. That is because an act of trespass in an individual wrong against every coowner and actionable at the hands of each of them. It is the right of every coowner to preserve the coownership property against invasion and protect the rights of other coowners also.