RIKHI RAM Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RALIA Ram father of the petitioners let out the shop in dispute to the respondents in 1960. Ralia Ram died leaving behind the widow, there sons and three daughters. The petitioners filed an ejectment petition against the respondent without impleading the other legal heirs of Ralia Ram as parties. The Rent Controller, Amritsar vide order dated August 27, 1975 accepted the ejectment petition of the petitioners and directed the respondent to vacate the shop with two months.

(2.) TARA Chand respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was allowed by the appellate authority, Amritsar vide order dated February 17, 1977, on the sole ground that the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner without impleading the other legal heirs of Ralia Ram was not maintainable. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IN Bir Bhan v. Kuldip Parkash and others, 1979(1) R.L.R. 312, the view taken was that one of the co-owners could not maintain an ejectment application without impleading the order co-owner as well. This view was reversed by the Division Bench in Ram Piari v. Dr. Kesho Ram, 1980(2) R.C.R. 137. In Mathra Dass v. Ram Piari, 1982(1) RCJ 447, Mathra Dass one of the co-owners preferred an ejectment application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The objection raised on behalf of the tenant was that the application is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. The D.B. over-ruled the objection and held that even one of the many co-landlords can singly maintain the ejectment application against a tenant under the Act. The ratio of Mathra Dass's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case. The finding of the appellate authority that the ejectment petition filed by the petitioners without impleading the other legal representatives of Ralia Ram is not maintainable cannot be sustained.