JIWAN DASS Vs. O P JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decision of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the tenant. Eviction was claimed on a number of grounds, including that the tenant was in arrears of rent. It is not necessary to go into every ground, because the eviction has resulted on the ground that be arrears of rent were not paid or tendered at the first hearing. The plea taken by the tenant was that he had paid the rent to a relation of the landlord, but the said relation was not produced and the authorities came to he conclusion that the payment to the landlord had not been proved. Against this decision the present petition for revision has been preferred. The question whether the tenant was in arrears of rent or the arrears had been paid or tendered is a question of fact and the concurrent decision of the two authorities cannot be interfered in revision.

(2.) Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the tenant has raised the plea that the eviction is sought by one, out of the two, landlords and, therefore, it could not be ordered. No authority supporting his contention has been placed before me and on principal I see no reason to defer from the view taken by Falshaw, C.J., in Vir Bhan v. Avtar Krishan etc.,1962 PunLR 1185, and even otherwise when there are two co-owners of a property, each one is the owner of the whole property and as such can prefer an application or eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises. In case the tenant raises the objection that the other co-owner be made a party, then he can be impleaded as a party. In the present case no such prayer was made by the tenant.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.