Surinder Singh and Others vs Rup Kaur and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This judgment will dispose of the cross case C.R No. 586/1979 as the questions of facts and law involved are common in both the cases.

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 partitioned the said plot among his sons, and consequent , the plot was divined 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 Khasras 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 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 bona fide required the same for their own use and occupation The application was connected, inter-alia, on the ground that the Petitioners in the ejectment application were not the landlords at Partap Singh himself was one of the owner of the said property; that moreover, the tenancy was separate, and, therefore, each landlord should have filed separate applications as the integrity of the tenancy (which was originally ore had broken as a result of the partition thereof, and two plots out of the six ones resulting from it were 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 all the landlords was maintainable. It was further found that the landlords required the premises in dispute for their own use for business. With these findings, 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 bad been broken after the partition of the plot, particularly when two shares out of the partitioned property had been purchased by the tenant Partap Singh himself. Thus, it was directed by the Appellate Authority that the landlords may exercise their option as to on whose behalf the present application 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 Joginder Singh, he came to the conclusion that his need was bona fide 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 order 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.

In C.R. No 586/1979, the learned Counsel for the tenants argued that the application should have been dismissed as a whole because, in the first instance, the landlords had failed to make their option before the Appellate Authority, and, secondly, the tenants had been prejudiced because of the pleadings. In case an independent application would have been filed by Joginder Singh, landlord, necessary pleas could be taken separately in the Written Statement. Thus argued the learned Counsel, great prejudice has been caused to the tenants on this account On the other hand, learned Counsel for the landlords submitted that the tenancy was one, and, the joint application on behalf of the landlords was maintainable According to the learned Counsel, on the appreciation of the evidence, it has been found by both the authorities that the requirement of Joginder Singh, landlord, was bona fide, and, therefore that being a finding of fast should net be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

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 bad been receiving rent separately from the tenants, in these circumstatnces, 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 raised to be challenge the same on behalf of the landlords.

The issue as to whether the joint petition filed on behalf of the four landlords could be treated on behalf of one of them or net is also not free from difficulty. Admittedly, the landlords did not make any option in this regard, and the Appellate Authority of its own decided that the same be treated to be on behalf of Joginder Singh, landlord. This has greatly prejudiced the case of the tenants. If Joginder Singh would have filed a separate application of his own, the same could be contested on behalf of the tenants by raising necessary plea Under these circumstances, the proper course would have been to dismiss the application on the short ground that the joint application, as such, was not maintainable, and no finding as to the bona fide requirement of the landlords was called for Consequently, C.R. No. 586 of 1979 preferred on behalf of the tenants it allowed and the eviction order passed against them it set aside whereas the counter petition C.R. No. 630 of 1979, filed on behalf of the landlords, stands dismissed.

The landlords will be entitled to file separate applications to seek ejectment of their tenants on the grounds available to them under the Act. Any finding given in these proceedings will be of no consequence qua the rights of the parties for the purpose of the ejectment proceeding to be taken subsequently because the eviction application has been dismissed en the sole ground that no joint application, as such, was competent. The parties will bear their own costs in both the cases.