NASEEM AKHTAR Vs. ABDUL RAOOF CHISTI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 filed eviction suit against tenant-respondent No. 3 Zahir Ahmad in the form of SCC Suit No. 51 of 1990, which was decreed on 24.8.1992. Respondent No. 3 filed SCC Revision No. 191 of 1993 against the said judgment and decree. Revision was allowed in part. Decree for eviction was set aside. Against the judgment of the revisional court dated 11.3.1994 respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 21482 of 1994 in this Court, which was allowed on 5.9.2006. In the judgment dated 5.9.2006 it was held that one co-owner could file suit for eviction. (The judgment is dated 5.9.2006 however, in the writ petition it has wrongly been mentioned as dated 9.10.2006). After the decision of the writ petition landlord-respondent No. 1 filed execution case against tenant-respondent No. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that he also has got some share in the property in dispute. The prayer is that execution case No. 32 of 2006 pending in the Court of JSCC, Meerut be quashed and respondent No. 1 shall not take possession.

(3.) The writ petition is highly frivolous and appears to have been engineered by the tenant. In the judgment dated 5.9.2006, this Court placed reliance upon Supreme Court Judgment reported in the case of M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Agarwal, AIR 2004 SC 1321 : 2004 SCFBRC 77 : 2004 (3) ARC (Suppl.) 71 , to hold that even one co-landlord can file suit for eviction. Similar view has been taken in M.P. Jain Vs. M. L. Jain, AIR 2006 SC 1471 : 2006 SCFBRC 277 : 2006 (2) ARC 64 . Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, according to which rule application filed under Sec. 21 of the Act shall be signed by all the co-landlords. However, Full Bench of this Court reported in Gopal Das and others Vs. ADJ and others, 1987 (1) ARC 281 , has held that the said portion of the rule is not valid. The said authority was also considered in the earlier judgment dated 5.9.2006. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. Petition dismissed..