MAHABIR KANOO Vs. KEDARESWAR BAKSHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (1), Cachar, Silchar, in T.A. No. 14 of 1976 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff (II), Silchar in T.S. No. 184 of 1976 instituted by the plaintiffs against defendant claiming, inter alia, for eviction of the defendant and arrears of rent.

(2.) The facts of the case, which have been held as proved by the Courts below are that the plaintiffs and their brother were the owners of the suit land. Haren died before the institution of the suit as he has not been heard of by the plaintiffs for more than 15 years. Haren during his life time let out the suit premises to the defendant/tenant and the defendant/tenant used to pay the monthly rent to Haren. After the death of Haren, the tenant was paying rent to the plaintiffs sides or plaintiff-1. The plaintiffs required the suit house bonafide for reconstruction or rebuilding has been disbelieved by the Courts below. As regards the default in payment of rent the Courts below have not given finding.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is non-joinder of the plaintiffs as the heirs of deceased Haren have not been joined as plaintiffs. Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even a co-owner landlord can bring the suit on behalf of himself and other co-owners. He has referred we to a decision of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1599 .