PAL SINGH versus SUNDER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 10-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
;~. 
PAL SINGH 
A 
v. 
SUNDER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
JANUARY 10, 1989 
--"-t· 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANA1HAN, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14(i)(e) and 39-Tenant-
~ 
Eviction of-Whether one co-owner of the property can maintain the 
eviction petition-Bona fide need of landlord-High Court appointed 
Advocate as Commissioner to give report-After considering report 
High Court not interfering with finding by appellate Court-Justified. 
c 
-t-
, 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 116-Estoppel in relation to 
tenants. 
In 1947 three rooms and a courtyard in an evacuee's property 
were given on tenancy to the appellant by the Custodian of Evacuee 
D 
Property. In 1956 the entire property was jointly purchased by the 
father of the respondent and a lady. The lady died in 1975 and her legal 
;A .. 
heirs became the co-landlords of the disputed premises. In June 1975, 
the father of the respondents filed an eviction petition against the appel-
!ant on the ground that the premises was required bona fide by the 
landlord under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 
E 
~ 
The legal heirs of the joint purchaser viz the lady, were, however, not 
impleaded as parties. The appellant contested this petition alleging that 
the respondent had no locus standi to file the petition, that the respon-
-1 
dent was not the sole owner of the premises in occupation of the appet-. 
!ant, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant existing 
between the parties, that as other owners were not joined as parties the 
F 
eviction petition was not maintainable, and further that the permission 
granted by the Slum Authority was invalid. The Additional Rent Con-
troll er held that one of the co-landlords could receive payment on behalf 
of the other and that receipt of rent by one landlord would not by itself 
make him exclusive owner when the premises were In fact owned by 
more than one owner and consequently the respondent alone could not 
G 
---
terminate the tenancy of the appellant. He further held that one co-
( 
owner could not terminate the tenancy when the property was owned by 
joint owners and that the res;iondent landlord was not able to prove 
that there was no reasonable suitable accommodation with him and that 
his claim for bona fide reasonably requirement was not proved. He 
accordingly dismissed the suit for eviction. 
H 
A 
B 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19891 1 S.C.R. 
Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller, the 
respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tri-
bunal held that the respondent was entitled to claim the premises on the 
ground of bona fide requirement for the use of his family, and that the 
property had all along been used for residential purposes and that it 
would not he proper to accept the view that the purpose of letting out 
was residential-cum-commercial. On the question whether one co-
owner could maintain the suit for eviction the Tribunal held that in the 
circumstances of the case the respondent landlord as a co-owner alone 
could have maintained the eviction petition. 
The appellant filed a second appeal and the High Court rejected 
C 
the same on the ground that the action for eviction was justified in view 
D 
E 
F 
of section 14(1 )(e) of the Act, and that the need of the landlord was bona 
-~ 
fide, and further the High Court affirmed the view that a co-owner in 
the facts and circumstances of the case was entitled to maintain an 
action for eviction. 
In the appeal hy special leave to this Court it was contended on 
behalf of the appellant tenant that in the absence of the other co-owner 
the suit for eviction was incompetent, and that the bona fide need was 
not properly proved and the High Court was in error in upholding the 
order of eviction on this ground. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: I. When the other co-owner did not object to the eviction 
one co~owner could maintain an action for eviction even in the absence 
of the other co-owner. I 7 SD) 
\"
In the instant case, the direction given by the Court in the suit for 
specific performance of an agreement to sell filed by Smt. Sham Kaur 
against the respondent-landlord, was not with respect to the portion of 
the property which was in the occupation of the tenant-appellant and 
which was the subject matter of the eviction petition. The three rooms 
G and the courtyard in question, the subject matter of dispute, falls in the 
share of Sunder Si

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