MOHAMMAD ABDUL RAZACK Vs. SALEEMUNNISA SAHABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition for eviction was filed by the respondent herein on the allegation that the revision petitioner, who is admittedly a tenant, had committed wilful default in payment of rents. The tenant pleaded that the respondent was not the sole landlord but that he had only 1/8th share and that his wife had 1/8th share in the premises and therefore he was not entitled to file a petition for eviction without joining the other co-owners. That contention was repelled by both the Courts and eviction was ordered.

(2.) In this revision petition, Mr. Trivikrama Rao, learned counsel for the tenant having regard to a decision of this Court in Damodaram Chetti v. Rukmani Amma, 1967-2 Andh Pra WR 200 contends that without joining the other co-owners, one of the co-owners is not entitled to maintain a petition for eviction of a tenant. In particular he relies upon the following observations of the Bench:

(3.) Reliance is placed on the proviso added to the principle laid down in that decision viz., "that the co-owners are made parties to such a petition." It may be stated at the outset that in that decision the main question that was posed for their Lordships consideration was whether one of the co-owners could file a petition when the other co-owners opposed the petition for eviction. The question was not whether one of the co-owners alone could file a petition without joining the other co-owners, for in that case the other co-owners were on record. So the question whether a petition be only one of the several co-owners is maintainable was not at all in issue. An objection to the maintainability of the petition was raised on the ground that a single co-owner cannot maintain a petition without the concurrence of the other co-owners. That contention was negatived. It is also significant to note that in that case, the co-owner that was made a party to the petition had opposed the eviction. Notwithstanding that fact the petition was held maintainable. Further, that was not a case in which one of the co-owners was receiving or was entitled to receive rent on behalf of another person and himself and was a "landlord" within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act;). Therefore that decision cannot in any way affect the view I am taking in this case.