SHARFUDDIN Vs. BIBI KHATIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Smt, Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, AIR 1977 SC 1599 their Lordships, whilst reiterating the view in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, observed that the law had been put beyond all doubt that the absence of one of the other co-owners on the record does not in the least disentitle the plaintiff co-owner from suing and succeeding in the proceeding for the eviction of a tenant. They, however, observed that -

(2.) In contesting the suit, defendant 1 took the plea that he had continued as a tenant of the premises for over twenty years. It was his case that the rent of the holding in dispute was being disputed between the two co-owners, the information of which was given to the defendant tenant in the name of Sharfuddin, the son of Alijan Mian (the original tenant) by a notice dated 16th Dec. 1964. Thereafter the defendant was paying Rs. 30/- being half of the rent of the holding in suit to defendant 2 and the other half of the same was tendered to the plaintiff which he refused to accept. It was claimed that the plaintiff wanted to realise the entire rent of the holding in suit to which he was not entitled. Since after the notice given to Sharfuddin, son of Alijan Mian, the plaintiff never collected the entire rent from defendant 1, and her share had been tendered and no wilful neglect in payment of rent had thus been made. It was the firm stand that the plaintiff alone had no right to evict the defendant tenant from the holding in suit in view of the other co-owner not only joining as a plaintiff but allowing the tenant to continue on the premises.

(3.) Defendant 2, Bibi Maimuna Khatoon, in her written statement specifically stated that the plaintiff collected the rent on her behalf but she collects only half of the rent from the defendant tenant which is to the extent of her own share and the plaintiff never collected the entire rent of the holding in suit. Defendant 2 thus separately collected the other half of the rent, i.e., to the extent of her half share from defendant 1. It was lastly stated that she has realised the rent of her own share, i.e., half of the actual rent from the defendant tenant and, therefore, no rent is due to her, from defendant 1 and, hence, the plaintiff's claim for the entire rent is totally false and there is no ground for the eviction of the tenant.