S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondents No. 3 to 5 filed Suit No. 197 of 1992 against the tenant-petitioner for eviction on the ground of default. The J.S.C.C. Agra through judgment and decree dated 2.12.1981 decreed the suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. Tenant-petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 4 of 1982 against the said judgment and decree. Vth Additional District Judge, Agra through judgment and order dated 14.8.1991 dismissed the revision, before this writ petition by the tenant.
(3.) The first point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that all the co-owners-landlords had not filed the suit for eviction, hence it has not maintainable. For this argument reliance has been placed upon Akhilesh Singh v. Vijay Singh and others, (2004 (1) A.R.C. 213). It has further been argued that if proposition of law laid down in the said authority of Akhilesh Singh (supra) is doubted then it should be referred to larger bench. The Supreme Court in a subsequent authority reported in M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. B. Agarwal, 2004 SCFBRC 77 : 2004 (3) ARC 71 (Suppl.) : A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1321 has held that one of several co-owners/co-landlords can file suit for eviction of the tenant. The said authority has been approved by a three Judges Authority of the Supreme Court in P.K. Jaiswal v. B.H. Bano, 2005 SCFBRC 371 : 2005 (2) ARC 921 : A.I.R. 2005 S.C.. 2857. In view of the Supreme Court judgments there is no need to refer the authority of Akhilesh Singh (supra) to a larger bench. In any case Courts below have held that only the plaintiffs and no other person were the landlords.;