Ramdas Singh and Others vs Rampukur Singh and Others

Das, J.—These analogous appeals arise out of certain rent suits. S.A. No. 398 of 1925, S.A. No. 421 of 1925 and S.A. No. 454 of 1925 are on behalf of the tenants. S.A. No. 420 of 1925, S.A. No. 460 of 1925 and S.A. No. 461 of 1925 are on behalf of the landlords. In my opinion the appeals on behalf of the tenants must succeed.

The plaintiffs are co-sharer landlords; the other co-sharer landlords have not been made parties to these suits either as plaintiffs or as defendants. It is not alleged in the plaint that there was a contract express or implied by which the tenants undertook to pay the plaintiff his share of the rent separately. It has been held that in the absence of such a contract a co-sharer is not entitled to maintain a suit for his share of rent unless he makes the co-sharer landlords parties to the suit.

The learned Judges in the Court below have taken the view that as Ram Das Singh, one of the co-sharer landlords, who is also a tenant made up his mind to keep his collection separate, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit for his share of the rent. But this is an erroneous view. It was necessary for the plaintiff to establish that the tenants agreed to pay rent separately to the co-sharer landlords.

I would allow Appeals Nos. 398, 421 and 454 of 1925, and dismiss the rent suits with costs in all the Courts. It follows that Appeals Nos. 420, 460 and 461 of 1925 must be dismissed with costs. There will be three sets of costs payable to each set of tenants.

Wort, J.

I agree.