Ajit Singh vs Khushwant Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the Authorities below.

Landlord Khushwant Singh sought the ejectment of his tenant Ajit Singh from the demised premises, which is a residential building, on the grounds that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from June, 1980 till the institution of the ejectment application filed on 12th December, 1980, and that the demised premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The tenant contested this ejectment application inter alia on the ground that the landlord had no locus standi to bring this application. It was pleaded that he was not the sole landlord of the demised premises. It was denied that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. During the pendency of the ejectment application the co-landlord Shrimati Upjinder Kaur moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC Code, seeking that she be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. That application was contested on behalf of landlord Khushwant Singh. The learned Rent Controller passed a detailed order dated 5.3.1982 and dismissed the application moved by Shrimati Upjinder Kaur. Subsequently, the said co-landlady filed a separate application against the tenant, in which ejectment order was passed. After having obtained the ejectment order she moved another application under Order I Rule 10 for impleading her as a party, but this time again the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 9th August, 1983 Ultimately, the Rent Controller found that Khushwant Singh alone had the locus standi to file the ejectment application and that he bona, fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal filed by the tenant the learned Appellate Authority maintained the said findings and thus affirmed the eviction order. It may be mentioned here that before the Appellate Authority as well as the said landlady Shrimati Upjinder Kaur again moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C for impleading her as a party. However no separate order was passed dismissing the same but the same was disposed of a long with the appeal. Dissatisfied with the sume, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

At the time of motion hearing it was contended that unless both the landlords join together the tenant cannot be evicted, particularly when the other landlord is opposing it.

It is no more disputed that Shrimati Upjinder Kaur is also the co-landlord qua the demised premises. She is the wife of the son of the tenant and is thus virtually in occupation of the demised premises. According to the learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondent, she admitted that the demised premises had fallen to the share of Khushwant Singh in partition and in any case the tenant admitted that he was the tenant under Khushwant Singh and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. Not only that, even vide order dated 25th March, 1983 (copy Exhibit RW4/C) eviction order was passed against the tenant at the instance of the said landlady Smt. Upjinder Kaur. That being so, the tenant was liable to be ejected in any case. According to the learned Counsel for the landlord. Khushwant Singh alone has the locus standi to file this application and the application filed by Shrimati Upjinder Kaur was collusive and was, therefore, of no consequence.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that virtually it is a dispute between the two landlords i. e. Khushwant Singh and Upjinder Kaur. The plea that the demised premises had fallen to the share of Khushwant Singh in partition was never taken nor there was any finding to that effect. In any case no such finding could be given in the absence of Upjinder Kaur. It is unfortunate that three applications were filed by her, i. e. two before the Rent Controller and the third one before the Appellate Authority, under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C., for impleading her as a party but all the applications were dismissed. Virtually it is the landlady Upjinder Kaur who is in occupation of the premises, being the wife of the son of Ajit Singh tenant. Thus it is a case where there is a dispute between the two landlords and the interests of both of them are in conflict with each other. Under these circumstances the proper remedy will be to take the necessary proceedings if any for partition. No ejectment order could be passed against tenant Ajit Singh in the circumstances when the co-landlady oppose the said application and was not even allowed to be impleaded as a party,

Consequently, this petition succeeds, the eviction orders are set aside and the ejectment application is dismissed with no order as costs.