- (1.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Labhu Ram Saini was the owner of the property in dispute. He gave it on rent to Kesho Ram tenant in 1951 on a rent of Rs. 12.94 per month. Labhu ram died on December 1, 1968. On his death, the property in dispute and other properties were inherited by Kumari Ram Piari - daughter, Smt. Hukam Devi - widow and Ram Sharan and Devi Sharan - sons of the deceased. Kumari Ram Piari filed an application for ejectment against the tenant on the ground that she required the property for her own use and occupation. The tenant contested the application for ejectment. He pleaded that the property was owned by other persons in addition to Kumari Ram Piari and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. He also pleaded that the applicant did not require the premises for her own use and occupation. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : - 1. Whether the applicant has become owner and landlord of the house in dispute by the alleged partition and whether she alone is entitled to maintain this application
(2.) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether she requires bonafide the house in dispute for her personal use and occupation The learned Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the landlord. He consequently ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. It reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 but affirmed the finding on issue No. 2. In view of the reversal of the finding of issue No. 1, it accepted the appeal and dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, to this Court. 2. The revision petition was put up before R.N. Mittal, J. His Lordship vide order dated November 8, 1979, referred the case to a larger Bench in view of the conflict in various decisions of this Court. This is how the case has been placed before the Division Bench. As is obvious, the main question which is subject matter of issue No. 1 which falls for determination is whether the petitioner Kumari Ram Piari had the right to file an application for ejectment without impleading the other legal representatives of Labhu Ram Saini and whether the learned Appellate Authority erred in holding otherwise or not. This question stands finally determined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kanta Goel v. B. P. Pathak and others,1977 AIR(SC) 1959 While interpreting the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (59 of 1958), their Lordships held that where a landlord who had let out his premises to a tenant, dies and his heirs succeed to his estate, one co-heir to whom the rent is being paid by the tenant and who receives it on behalf of the estate, would be landlord for the purposes of the Act. It was held that co-heirs constituted the body of landlords and, by consent, implicit, or otherwise, of the plurality of landlords, one of them representing them all, was collecting rent. In short, it was held that the said co-heir functioned, for all practical purposes as the landlord and was, therefore, entitled to institute proceedings for eviction against the tenant qua landlord. As regards the facts of the present case, the tenant, in his cross-examination, admitted that he has been paying rent to Smt. Ram Piari as her mother and two brothers asked him to do so on December 17, 1968, and that he gave a notice on April 24, 1969 to Smt. Ram Piari alone for effecting the repairs of the house in dispute. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that these admissions made by the tenant clearly show that for the purposes of convenience, the parties agreed to pay rent to Smt. Ram Piari and the tenant thought her responsible for effecting the repairs of the house in dispute. After having recorded these finding of the fact, the Appellate Authority went wrong in holding that the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as the other co-owners has not joined the petitioner in filing the ejectment application.
(3.) In Sarwan Singh v. Kaur Chand and another, 1970 RCJ 891, Kartar Singh etc. v. Bachan Singh etc., 1973 RCJ 348 Maghi Mal v. Sat Pal,1979 RCJ 205, and Madan Gopal Sehgal v. Om Parkash,1965 PunLR 97, the learned Judges of this Court took the view that every person who derives title from the landlord is the landlord for the purposes of Section 2 (c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and that all the descendants of the original landlord will be landlords individually in their own right. It was thus held that one of the joint landlords can make an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the Act. However, in Agya Ram v. Amrik Singh and another, C. R. No. 326 of 1965 decided on March 10, 1966, Birbhan v.Kuldip Parkash and others, C. R. No. 1990 of 1978 decided on January 25, 1979, and Shiv Devi v. Firm Maharaj Parshad Piare Lal and Ors. C. R. No. 630 of 1964 decided on April 30, 1965, the learned Single Judges of this Court took a contrary view. In Birbhan's case a learned Single Judge of this court relied on Nandlal Girdhalal and another v. Gulm Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala and others, 1973 AIR(Guj) 131 (F.B.) to hold that the rule that a co-owner may maintain an action to eject a trespasser without joining other co-owner in such action can have no application where a co-owner seeks to evict a tenant who is in possession of the property after determination of the lease. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kanta Goel's case , the decision of this Court in Agya Ram's case Birbhan's case and Shiv Devi's case no longer hold the field. As already observed, the ratio of the decision of their Lordships in Smt. Kanta Goel's case aptly applies to the facts of the present case. I would thus be seen that the tenant in this case has been treating petitioner Ram Piari as the landlord as she was authorised on behalf of the other co-owners to get the rent. We may observe that the definition of word "Landlord" under the Act is almost the same as in the Delhi Act. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to reverse the finding of the learned Appellate Authority on issue No. 1 and we hold that the application for ejectment filed by the petitioner is maintainable.;