Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD , Sri M. Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by the landlord for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed by the Judge Small Causes Court. The revision filed by the tenant has been allowed partly where the decree of the Trial Court for ejectment has been set aside solely on the ground that there were other co -owners of the property in question whereas notice was given and suit was filed by only one co -owner. It has been held that since the other co -owners have not participated in the proceedings/the landlord was not entitled to terminate the tenancy by his single signature.
(2.) THE aforesaid question has been finally decided and law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in, 2004 (55) ALR 98 wherein it has been clearly held that one co -owner can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property owned by other co -owners unless it is shown that the other co -owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant. In the case of Gopal Dass and others v. Additional District Judge and others, 1987 (13) ALR 275 (FB) it has been held that release application can be signed by one of several co -owners and to that extent the provisions of 15 (2) are invalid. In view of settled position of law as referred to above, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.1993 passed by the Revisional Court in Revision No. 191 of 1993 Zahir Ahmad v. Abdul Rauf to the extent the ejectment of the respondent has been refused only on the ground that one of several co -owners alone was not competent to file the suit for eviction of the tenant is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court stands confirmed. No order is passed as to costs.;