It may be seen that this was a suit by a landlord seeking eviction of the respondent No. 1. It is well settled that even one of the landlords is competent to take proceedings on behalf of the body of the landlords. In this view of the matter, the reasoning adopted by the District Court in coming to the conclusion that the suit had abated is not sustainable. Thus in Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, 1977(2) RCR 103 (Delhi): AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1599, it was laid down 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 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was further observed that a co-heirs constituted the body of landlords and, by consent, implicit or otherwise of the plurality of landlords, one of them representing them all, is entitled to institute proceedings for eviction against the tenant.
4. On an earlier decision given in the case of Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2335 wherein similar opinion was expressed. In view of the aforementioned authorities, the conclusion is inescapable that one of the landlords could pursue the suit. Accordingly, the order passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Guna holding that the suit had abated is set aside
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1991
Decided On: 08.08.1994
Abdul Hai Vs. Abdul Sattar
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T.S. Doabia, J.
Citation: 1995(1) RCR 49
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It arises out of the following facts.
The petitioner's father late Suleman Ghar Ghati filed a suit against respondent No. 1 for possession and for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the petitioners died and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1, Abdul Hai was permitted to be brought on the record. Thereafter, an objection was taken that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are also the legal heirs of the deceased Suleman, therefore, they are also necessary parties and a suit cannot be aboceeded without impleading them. This matter was again considered by the trial court and their names were permitted to be brought on the record.
2. Thereafter an application for amendment of the plaint was filed. The respondent No. 1 who figured as a defendant filed a revision petition against the order by which the daughters were permitted to be brought on record. This revision petition was allowed and it was held that the suit had abated as the daughter who were the legal heirs were not brought on the record. It is against this order passed by the District Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
3. It may be seen that this was a suit by a landlord seeking eviction of the respondent No. 1. It is well settled that even one of the landlords is competent to take proceedings on behalf of the body of the landlords. In this view of the matter, the reasoning adopted by the District Court in coming to the conclusion that the suit had abated is not sustainable. Thus in Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, 1977(2) RCR 103 (Delhi): AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1599, it was laid down 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 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was further observed that a co-heirs constituted the body of landlords and, by consent, implicit or otherwise of the plurality of landlords, one of them representing them all, is entitled to institute proceedings for eviction against the tenant.
4. On an earlier decision given in the case of Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2335 wherein similar opinion was expressed. In view of the aforementioned authorities, the conclusion is inescapable that one of the landlords could pursue the suit. Accordingly, the order passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Guna holding that the suit had abated is set aside and the matter is sent back to the trial court for deciding the same in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment