RAM PIARI Vs. DR. KESHO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Labhu Ram Saini was the owner of the property in dispute. He gave it on rent to Kesho Ram tenant in 1951 on a rent of Rs. 12.94 per month. Labhu ram died on December 1, 1968. On his death, the property in dispute and other properties were inherited by Kumari Ram Piari - daughter, Smt. Hukam Devi - widow and Ram Sharan and Devi Sharan - sons of the deceased. Kumari Ram Piari filed an application for ejectment against the tenant on the ground that she required the property for her own use and occupation. The tenant contested the application for ejectment. He pleaded that the property was owned by other persons in addition to Kumari Ram Piari and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. He also pleaded that the applicant did not require the premises for her own use and occupation. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -

(2.) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether she requires bonafide the house in dispute for her personal use and occupation

(3.) In Sarwan Singh v. Kaur Chand and another, 1970 RCJ 891, Kartar Singh etc. v. Bachan Singh etc., 1973 RCJ 348 Maghi Mal v. Sat Pal,1979 RCJ 205, and Madan Gopal Sehgal v. Om Parkash,1965 PunLR 97, the learned Judges of this Court took the view that every person who derives title from the landlord is the landlord for the purposes of Section 2 (c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and that all the descendants of the original landlord will be landlords individually in their own right. It was thus held that one of the joint landlords can make an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the Act. However, in Agya Ram v. Amrik Singh and another, C. R. No. 326 of 1965 decided on March 10, 1966, Birbhan v.Kuldip Parkash and others, C. R. No. 1990 of 1978 decided on January 25, 1979, and Shiv Devi v. Firm Maharaj Parshad Piare Lal and Ors. C. R. No. 630 of 1964 decided on April 30, 1965, the learned Single Judges of this Court took a contrary view. In Birbhan's case a learned Single Judge of this court relied on Nandlal Girdhalal and another v. Gulm Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala and others, 1973 AIR(Guj) 131 (F.B.) to hold that the rule that a co-owner may maintain an action to eject a trespasser without joining other co-owner in such action can have no application where a co-owner seeks to evict a tenant who is in possession of the property after determination of the lease. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kanta Goel's case , the decision of this Court in Agya Ram's case Birbhan's case and Shiv Devi's case no longer hold the field. As already observed, the ratio of the decision of their Lordships in Smt. Kanta Goel's case aptly applies to the facts of the present case. I would thus be seen that the tenant in this case has been treating petitioner Ram Piari as the landlord as she was authorised on behalf of the other co-owners to get the rent. We may observe that the definition of word "Landlord" under the Act is almost the same as in the Delhi Act. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to reverse the finding of the learned Appellate Authority on issue No. 1 and we hold that the application for ejectment filed by the petitioner is maintainable.