RAM BAHADUR Vs. IIIRD A D J SHAHJAHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) PROPERTY in dispute consists of two adjoining shops. Western shop numbered as shop No. 1 was owned by Munshi Lal eastern shop numbered, as shop No. 2 was owned by Babu Ram. Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are legal representatives of Munshi Lal while respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are legal representatives of Babu Ram. According to the landlords respondents western shop was let out to Ram Bahadur petitioner No. 1 and eastern shop to Hazari Lal-petitioner No. 2. It has further been stated by the respondents that Ram Bahadur was a Government servant hence he asserted that his son, i.e., Rajendra Singh-petitioner No. 3 was the tenant of the western shop. Rent of western shop is Rs. 16 per month and of eastern shop initially it was Rs. 10 per month however, later on it was enhanced to Rs. 12.50. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Hazari Lal and Rajendra Singh filed an injunction suit being O.S. No. 36 of 1979 against landlords-respondents 2 to 10 seeking to restrain them from evicting the plaintiffs forcibly from the tenanted accommodation. In the said suit petitioners 2 and 3 asserted that respondents 2 to 10 were joint owners of both the shops. It appears that in the said suit some rent was also deposited by the plaintiffs of the said suit. After filing of the said suit respondents 2 to 10 terminated the tenancies of petitioners and demanded the rent. Thereafter respondents 2 to 10 filed two suits against the petitioners being S.C.C. Suit No. 50 of 1979 which related to eastern shop No. 2. The number of the other suit was S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 1979 which related to the western shop bearing No. 1. In the notices as well as plaints all the petitioners were made noticees and defendants and all the respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 10 were made plaintiffs in the suit and they all had given the notices jointly. In the plaints it was categorically stated that even though heirs of Munshi Lal were owners-landlord of western shop bearing No. 1 and heirs of Babu Ram were owners-landlord of eastern shop bearing No. 2, however in case Court found all the plaintiffs to be joint owners then decree for possession and recovery of arrears of rent might be passed accordingly. This was done in order to avoid the confusion which was created by the tenants in respect of ownership/landlordship and tenancy of the shops in dispute. Trial court/J.S.C.C./Munsif, Shahjahanpur, dismissed both the suits on 23.2.1982. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court respondents 2 to 10 filed two revisions being S.C.C. Revision No. 27 of 1982 and S.C.C. Revision No. 28 of 1982. IIIrd A.D.J., Shahjahanpur, by separate but similar orders dated 25.5.1982 allowed both the revisions and decreed the suits for eviction as well as recovery of arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation. Through this writ petition tenants have challenged the aforesaid judgments and orders of the revisional court.

(3.) IN respect of joint notice revisional court held that the admitted position was that heirs of Munshi Lal were owners landlord of western shop bearing No. 1 and heirs of Babu Ram, were owners landlord of eastern shop bearing No. 2 and further Ram Bahadur was tenant of western shop and Hazari Lal tenant of eastern shop. The revisional court held that joint notice was valid. IN my opinion this finding is perfectly correct. IN view of confusion created by the petitioners in their Suit No. 36 of 1979 joint notice was given. Even otherwise, if there was any chance of confusion and likelihood of tenant's objection regarding ownership and tenancy joint notice by landlords of both the shops given jointly to the tenants of both the shops was perfectly valid. IN such situation neither the notice nor the suits can be held to be bad for joinder of unnecessary parties or for containing unnecessary material. Similarly suits cannot be held to be bad for misjoinder of causes of actions.