SURINDER SINGH Vs. RUP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of the cross case C.R. No. 586/1979 as the questions of facts and law involved are common in both the cases.

(2.) ORIGINALLY , the plot (vacant land) consisting of Khasra No. 1719 was given on rent by its original owners Gurbachan Singh, etc., to Partap Singh somewhere in the year 1917. The tenant was allowed to construct factory building on the said plot. During the continuance of the tenancy, the original owner Gurbachan Singh petitioned the said plot among his sons and consequently, the plot was divided and separate numbers were given thereto, resulting into six shares. Out of it, two shares, i.e., Khasra No. 1719/2 and 1719/6 were purchased by the tenant Partap Singh himself whereas the other four Khasra No. 1719/1, 1719/3, 1719/5 and 1719/7 remained with the present landlords who are four in number, and are the sons of Gurbachan Singh. The present ejectment application was filed on 4th October, 1968, on behalf of the four landlords, seeking ejectment of their tenant Partap Singh (who died during the pendency of the ejectment application and his legal representatives were brought on record) on the ground that they bonafide required the same for their own use and occupation. The application was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners in the ejectment application were not the landlords as Partap Singh himself was one of the owners of the said property; that moreover, the tenancy was separate, and, therefore, each landlord should have filed separate applications as the integrity of tenancy which was originally one had been broken as a result of the partition thereof, and two plots out of the six ones resulting from it was sold to the tenant himself. The learned Rent Controller found that the partition of the property among the petitioners did not affect the integrity of the tenancy, and, so, the application, as such, filed jointly by the landlords was maintainable. It was further found that the landlords refindings, order of eviction was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the joint petition on behalf of all the four landlords was not maintainable as the integrity of the tenancy had been broken after the partitioned of the plot, particularly when two shares out of the portioned property had been purchased by the tenant Partap Singh himself. Thus, it was directed by the Appellate Authority that the landlords may exercise their options to on whose behalf the present applications should proceed. In spite of that, no option was given by the landlords. However, the Appellate Authority itself decided that the present ejectment application be treated on behalf of Joginder Singh, landlord. Treating the application on behalf of Joghinder Singh, he came to the conclusion that his need was bonafide for occupation of the rented land as he had no other land in the urban area concerned. With this finding, the eviction order was maintained qua Joginder Singh, landlord. The application of the other three landlords with respect to the rented land of their share was, however, dismissed. Dissatisfied with the orders of the authorities below, the tenants have filed C.R. No. 586/1979 while the landlords whose application was dismissed, have brought C.R. No. 630/1979.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the petition filed on behalf of the tenants. Once it was found that the integrity of the tenancy had been broken on account of partition, and each landlord had been receiving rent separately from the tenants, in these circumstances, each landlord should have filed a separate application for the ejectment of his tenant from his respective portion of the property. The joint petition on behalf of all, as such, was not maintainable, and it has been rightly found so by the learned Appellate Authority. No meaningful argument could be raised to challenge the same on behalf of the landlords.