- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It was argued in the first inatance that the suit for eviction should not have been decreed against the defendant appellant (tenant) as the other heirs of the co-landlord Mohanlal were not impleaded as parties to the suit. It may be stated here that the defendant took the shop in dispute on rent from the plaintiff-respondent and his father Mohanlal on August 17, 1948 by means of a rent note. The tenancy was at will. The father of the plaintiff (Mohanlal) died on June 26, 1953. The case of the plaintiff is that after his father's death the defendant-appellant has been paying rent to him alone in his capacity as the sole landlord of the shop in dispute. It has further been stated that a family arrangement was arrived at among the heirs of Mohanlal between July 15, 1958 and July 20, 1958 according to which the shop in dispute was exclusively allotted to the plaintiff-respondent. This family arrangement was acknowledged in a writing dated March 3, 1963 which was jointly executed by the plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal and Mst. Birdi (other heir of Mohanlal). It has also been averred that the plaintiff kanhaiya Lal is the 'Karta' to the joint family and as such he had a right to institute the suit. The defendant-tenant seriously contested these averments of the plaintiff. The learned District Judge found that plaintiff alone was competent to institute the suit for eviction against the defendant. He held that the family arrangement Ex. P. 6 did not require registration and that from this it is established that the shop in dispute exclusively fell to the share of the plaintiff. Apart from this, the learned District Judge found on the basis of the evidence that the plaintiff is the 'Karta' of the Joint Hindu Family of which his sons are also members. It has been held in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagnnath and ors., 1976 AIR(SC) 2335 that a co-owner is as much the owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is. This proposition was relied on by their lordships in Smt. Kanta Goal v. E.P. Pathak and ors, 1977 AIR(SC) 1599 where the question arose whether one co-heir of deceased landlord can sue for eviction in absence of other co-heirs who have no objection. It was held therein that where a landlord who had let out his premises to a tenant dies and his heirs succeed to his estate, 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 purpose of the Delhi Rent Control Act (No. 59 of 1958) and the 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 and so in short, he functioned, for all practical purposes as the landlord, and was, therefore, entitled to institute proceedings for eviction against the tenant qua landlord. As the rent note was executed in favour of the plaintiff respondent and as he is one of he heirs of the deceased Mohanlal (father of the plaintiff and further as the shop in dispute was allowed to the plaintiff in pursuance of the family arrangement arrived at, the learned District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff alone could maintain the suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant being devoid of force is rejected.
(2.) It was next argued that the learned that the learned District Judge has committed a serious error of law in holding that the plaintiff has been able to establish reasonable and bonafide necessity in respect of the shop in dispute and that he would be put to greater hardship if the decree of ejectment is not passed in his favour, learned counsel subimited that in para 2 of the plaint it has not been mentioned that the shop is requited for reasonable and bonafide necessity of plaintiff as the words used are xxx It is pertinent to mention here that in reply to para 2 of the plaint the defendant has stated in para 2 of his written that xxx On the basis of these averments in the pleadings issue No. 2 regarding reasonable and bonafide necessity was framed which when translated into English runs as under :- "Whether the Personally needs xxx the shop - Parties led evidence and at no stage the defendant raised any protest that the words 'reasonable and bonafide' have not been alleged in the plaint nor these words have been mentioned in the issue No. 2 referred to above. After examining the entire evidence, the learned District Judge found that the plaintiff has been successful in establishing that the shop in dispute is reasonable and bonafide required by him. In these circumstances I am unable to agree with the learned counsel that the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge stands vitiated because of the absence of the words 'reasonable and bonafide' necessity in the plaint and issue No. 2. The finding of reasonable and bonafide necessity is one of fact as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s. India Pipe fitting Co. v. Rakruddin M.A. Baker and anr., 1978 AIR(SC) 45 So also the finding relating to comparative hardship is a finding of fact. Reference may be made in this connection to Bhagwan vishwanath Phadmis & Ors. v. Bhasker Digamber Choudhary, 1977 AIR(SC) 2183 Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy me that in reaching the conclusions as regards reasonable and bonafide necessity and comparative hardships any mistake of law has been committed by the District Judge or the findings are based on no evidence are such as no reasonable man can reach. The finding that the plaintiff requires the shop reasonably any bonafide does not call any interference by this Court. The learned District Judge was also right in holding on the basis of the material on record and the circumstances of the case that the landlord will be put to greater hardship than the tenant by refusing to pass the decree in his favour. No other point was pressed by either of the parties. In these circumstances this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.
(3.) This appeal, therefore, fails and it is hereby rejected summarily.;