M/S. INDIA UMBRELLA MANUFACTURING CO. AND ORS. versus BHAGABANDEI AGARWALLA (DEAD) BY LRS. SMT. SAVITRI AGARWALLA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 05-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MIS. INDIA UMBRELLA MANUFACTURING CO. AND ORS. 
v. 
BHAGABANDEI AGARWALLA (DEAD) BY LRS. SMT. SAVITRI 
AGARWALLA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 5, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Tenancy laws: 
C 
Eviction suit by one co-owner-Maintainability of-Held, One co-owner 
can file suit, based on doctrine of agency-Co-owner filing suit acts as an 
agent of other co-owners a11d consent of other co-ow11ers is assumed unless 
shuwn lo the contrary-Further when both co-owners file suit, une co-owner 
cannot withdraw his consent midway to prejudice the other co-owner-Right 
D of parties stand crystu//ized on the date the suit is filed and also entitlement 
to seek ejectment is adjudged by reference to the same date. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section I I l(d)-Doctrine of merger-
App/icahility of-Held: Interest of landlord in its entirety must come to vest 
und merge into the interest of tenant in its entirety-When part of interest by 
E landlord comes to vest in tenant there is no merger, the tenancy is not 
extinguished and doctrine uf merger is not applicable. 
Co1;stitutio11 of India, 1950 -Article 142-·fnhere11t jurisdiction-Held: 
Cun be invoked to cut short further litigation. 
F 
Owner of the suit property gifted the property to her daughters B 
and D. The property was in possession of a company and a shop. The two 
sisters owned the property undivided and jointly and by consent 
apportioned the rent agreed upon by the two tenants in equal shares. 
Thereafter, the sisters got the land partitioned and not the structure of 
the house standing over the land. They jointly filed suits for ejectnient of 
G the tenants. Trial Court dismissed the suits. Thereafter D transferred her 
share in the suit house to the partners of the company carrying on business 
in the suit premises. B filed appeal challenging the dismissal of suits. 
During pendency of the appeal, buyers of D's share filed an application 
that they were not interested in the ejectment of tenants with regard to 
H 
10 
\, 
I 
INDIA UMBRELLA MFG. CO., .. BHAGABANDEI AGAR WALLA 
11 
their share in the property. Tenant filed another application that right to A 
evict vest in the co-landlord as one of them had transferred away her rights 
and the transferees were not interested in pursuing eviction, and so the 
appeal be dismissed. District Judge allowed the appeal arising out.of the 
suits and passed decree for eviction putting an embargo on the right of 
the decree-holders to execute the decree unless the property was 
partitioned between the co-owners. Aggrieved tenants preferred civil B 
revision petitions. Buyers of D's share also joined as revision petitions. 
Revision petitions were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit 
for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. 
This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a 
c 
suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own 
right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-
owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners D 
were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed inspite of their 
disagreement. In the instant case, the suit for eviction was filed by both 
\ 
the co-owners. During continuity of litigation one of them parted with her 
share in the property. One of the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent 
midway the suit so as to prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, E 
the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of the suit and the 
entitlement of the co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by 
reference to the date of institution of the suit; the only exception being 
when by virtue of a subsequent event the entitlement of the body of co-
owners to eject the tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation 
of law. 115-G-H;I6-A-q 
F 
Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, 119761 4 SCC 184 and Dhannalal v. 
Kalawatibai., 12002) 6 SCC 16, referred to. 
· J.2. In the instant case, one of the two tenants purchased only a share G 
in the property and not the entire property. The applicability of doctrine 
of merger within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Transfer 
of Property Act, 1882 is not attracted. In order to bring the tenancy to 
an end the merger should be complete, i.e. the interest of the landlord in 
its entirety mu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.