U. C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS revision application under section 25 of Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge and Judge Small Cause Court, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendants.
(2.) THE plaintiff came forward with the case that he was the sole owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and defendant Himayatul Hasan (now dead) was tenant at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month, but he could not pay rent since the year 1958 except a sum of Rs. 500/- inspite of repeated demand and representations. It was also stated that the defendant had sub-let two rooms to two different persons. Notice of ejectment was served on the defendant, but he neither vacated the premises in dispute nor paid rent, hence the suit. The original defendant before filing of the written statement died and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record. They filed separate written statements supporting case of each other. Their case was that their father Himayatul Hasan was a friend of the plaintiff and had some money transactions with him. It was pleaded that he was weak and mentally derailed. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is not the sole owner and landlord of the house in dispute and the property belonged to his father and after his death it was inherited by the plaintiff, his sisters and mother. The plea of sub-letting was also denied. The trial court framed certain issues in the case and the parties tendered evidence in support of their case. From the evidence on record it transpires that the house in dispute was purchased in the name of the mother of the plaintiff who died in the year 1932 leaving behind the plaintiff, two sisters and her husband and after her death the name of the plaintiff and his two sisters under the guardianship of their father was recorded in the Municipal records. It is also on the record that the plaintiff's father had two more wives and they were alive when his mother died and atleast one of them is still alive. It was also in evidence that after the death of the plaintiff's mother rent was realised by his father who also died in the year 1941. After the death of his father, according to the defendant rent was sometime paid to the plaintiff and sometime to his mother and ultimately was deposited in Court under section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. But it is not clear during which period rent was paid to the plaintiff or his step mother. The trial court observed that after the death of the plaintiff 3/4th share will be inherited by her son and daughters and 1 /4th share will go to the plaintiffs father, and after the death of his father, his share will devolve on the step mother of the plaintiff, his sisters and other daughters of his father and sisters gifted their share and thus each of them got smaller share.
(3.) THE trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit by holding that he was not the sole owner of the Dermises in dispute and other co-owners were not impleaded as parties to the suit and he had no right to file the suit. THE trial court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove the case of sub-tenancy and his claim was barred by time and was not cognizable and further the plaintiff alone was not the owner of the house in dispute and as such notice given by him was illegal and the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant, challenged the conclusions arrived at by the court below on number of grounds including its conclusion that the plaintiff had no right to file the suit as he had not impleaded other co-owners and co-landlords as parties to the suit. In this connection learned counsel contended that there may be co-owners, in the house in dispute who had very small share, but it was the plaintiff who was the landlord of the house in dispute and as such he could have alone maintained the suit and even as a co-owner he had a right to file the suit and the suit was wrongly dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of other co-owners. In support of his contention learned counsel made reference to the Supreme Court decision in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagan Nath, AIR 1976 SC 2335. The said case under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the suit was filed by one of the co-owners on the ground of default aswell as reasonable requirement of the premises for his own occupation aswell as members of Joint Hindu family consisting of his mother and married brother. The Court observed : "Jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The question will change only when partition takes place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord and co-owner of the premises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of section 13 (1) (f). It is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property for the purposes of section 13(1) (f) as long as he is a co-owner of the property being at the same time the acknowledged landlord of the defendants." In Sri Ram Pasricha case (supra) the finding was that the plaintiff was dealing with the property and it was he who was the landlord.;