DAMODARAM CHETTI Vs. VUNGARALA RUKMANIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ground No. 5 in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition raises an important question as to the maintainability of a petition for eviction under section 10 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 by one co-owner where the other co-owner does not join in the petition, but on the contrary opposes the eviction of the tenant. Since this question is one of general importance, I direct that this revision petition be posted as early as possible before a Bench, which may also hear and determine the other points raised in the revision petition. In pursuance of the said order the petition came on for final hearing before the Bench. B.Rama Rao, for Petitioner. T.S.Narasinga Rao and E.Subramaniam, for Respondent No.1. The Judgment of the Bench was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.- This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to the Bench by our learned brother Basi Reddy, J., because it raises an important question as to the maintainability of a petition for eviction under section 10 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as " the Act" ) by one co-owner where the other co-owner does not join in the petition, but on the contrary opposes the eviction of the tenant.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the tenant of respondent No. 1, the wife and respondent No. 2 the husband, who are joint owners of a house given to them under a deed of settlement, dated 4th June, 1965. The tenancy was evidenced by a lease deed Exhibit 2, dated 21st November, 1958, executed in favour of both the respondents, the petitioner agreeing to pay the rent to both and to obtain receipts for the same. After the period of this lease expired, the petitioner entered into a lease deed with respondent No. 2 alone, under Exhibit D-1, dated 9th January, 1960. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a notice Exhibit D-2 to the 1st respondent on 29th February, 1960, stating that she has no right to the premises and that he has entered into a lease deed with her husband, respondent No. 2 and was paying him the rents. This was in reply to that a notice issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner, Exhibit P-3 to pay the rent. After the receipt of the reply notice Exhibit D-2 the 1st respondent filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller for evicting the tenant-petitioner on the ground that he has sub-let the premises, that he has committed default in payment of rents and that he has denied her title to the house all of which are grounds for eviction under section 10 (2) of the Act. Since the husband did not join her in her petition, she impleaded him as respondent No. 2 to the petition. The husband supported the tenant and stated that he obtained the house in a partition with his brother and sister and was the sole owner of the premises which he has leased out to the tenant. The Rent Controller has found as a fact that no rents were paid to the 1st respondent, that the petitioner has sub-let the premises and that he had denied her title. Apart from this, it was also found that the petitioner had obtained a mortgage of the entire premises from the 2nd respondent, which also is an act of denial of the 1st respondent's title. In appeal, these findings have been confirmed. Before the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court, the petitioner objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the 1st respondent is not alone entitled to file a petition for eviction inasmuch as she and her husband the 2nd respondent, were joint owners and until both of them join in the petition, the petition was not maintainable. This objection was rejected by both the Courts. Before us the only question that falls for determination is whether the petition is maintainable, inasmuch as only one out of the two jcint owners had filed the petition for eviction, while the other joint owner, the 2nd respondent opposes the eviction of the tenant.

(3.) Mr. Rama Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the lease entered into with the petitioner was by both the joint owners and is one and indivisible, and until both the co-owners join in the petition, they cannot be held to be landlords within the definition of section 2 (vi) of the Act and the petition cannot be deemed to have been presented by a landlord within the meaning of section 10 (2). Section 2 (vi) defines ' landlord ' thus :- "Landlord means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, thrustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant...." There is nothing in this definition which precludes a joint owner from be ing termed a landlord. He is as much a landlord in respect of his share of the property as both of them are in respect of the whole of it. The only question is whether having regard to the joint ownership and the theory that neither of such joint owners is entitled to possession of any specific portion of the property, can one of them alone recover possession of the whole of the property or of his share of the property ? There is little doubt that one of several co-owners cannot recover possession of a property held by them jointly, unless all of them join or unless those who do not join are made party defendants or respondents as the case may be. In so far as the Rent Control Act is concerned, this view of ours is fortified by a judgment of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in