Ramdas Singh and Others vs Rampukur Singh and Others

Das, J.—These analogous appeals arise out of certain rent suits. Second Appeal No 398 of 1925, Second Appeal No. 421 of 1925 and Second Appeal No. 454 of 1925 are on behalf of the tenants: Second Appeal No. 420 of 1925, Second Appeal No. 460 of 1925 and Second Appeal No. 461 of 1925 are on behalf of the landlords. In ray 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-land lords, 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.