LexSRI RAM PASRICHA versus JAGANNATH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'(.·
/
J
395
SRI RAM PASRICHA
v.
JAGANNATH & ORS.
August 24, 1976.
[Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. c. GUPTA, J.T.]
Indian Evidence Act 1872 Sec. 116-Whether tenant can deny the landlord's
title.
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956-Sec. l3(1Hf)-Whet/1er one of the
co-owners can file a suit for eviction without impleadinr: other co-owners-Whet'
lier a co-owner, an owner for the purpose of an eviction suit-Stage for raising
objection about frame of suit.
A
B
The pla,intiff respondent is one of the co-owners of the premises which were
C
let out to the appellant tenant. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction under s.
13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises T,enancy Act 1956.
The grounds for
eviction were the non-payment of the rent and the reasonable requirement of
the premises for the landlord. The trial court held that the plaintiff being only
a co-sharer cannot be said to be the owner within the meaning of s. 13(1) (f).
The trial court, however, held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the reason-
ableness of the requirement of the members of the family fur whose benefit the
premises were held by him and, therefore, granted a decree for eviction. An
D
appeal filed by the appellants failed. In the s.econd appeal filed by the appel-
lants it was contended that although reasonable requirement of the premises were
established, the respondent was not entitl'ed to a decree for eviction since he
was only a co-sharer and, therefore, not the owner of the premises.
The single
Judge of the High Court held that it will not be sufficient if the reasonable
requirement is of all the members of the family of the co-owners but such co-
owners must again be the landlords who only are entitled to a decree for recovery
of the possession under s. 13(l)(f). A Division Bench set aside the decision of
the Single Judge on the ground that a co-owner is as much as absolute owner as
E
a sole owner. In appeal by special\ leave, the appellant contended :
A landlord to be able to evict a tenant under Section 13 (1 )(f)
must be an absolute owner of the premises from which eviction is
sought.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : The contention of the appellant that the co-sharer plaintiff m4st be
the absolute owner and a co-owner cannot without impleading all the owners
of the premises ask for eviction cannot be accepted because the plea pertaining
to the domain of the frame of the suit 5hould have been raised at the earliest
opportunity and it was not done.
Secondly, the relation ·between the parties
being that of landlord and tenant only the landlord could terminate the tenancy
and institute the suit for eviction.
The tenant in such a suit is estopped from
questioning the title of the landlord under s. 116 of the Evidence Act. Under
the general law, in a suit between the landlord and tenant, the question oi title
to the lease property is irrelevant. The plaintiff is one of the co-owners of the
premises. The other co-sha•rers being his mother and married brother who
reside in the same premises along with him. Jurisprudentially, it is not correct
to say that a co-owner of a property is not an owner.
He owns every part of
the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a
part owner or a fractional owner of the property.
The position will change
when pa<rtition take• place.
It is, therefore, not po·ssible to accept the submis-
sion that the plaintiff· who is admittedly the landlord and co-owner of the pre-
mises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of s.
13(1)(£).
f399 A-C. 401 B & 402 A-Bl
Bollye Salee and' Anr. v. Akram Ally and Anr. (1879] ILR (4) Calcutta 961;
Kattusheri Pishareth Kanna Pisharody v. Vallotil Manakel Narayan Somayaiipad
and Ors., [1878] 81 ILR (3) Madras 234; ]Jaikrishna Sakharam v. Moro Krishna
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
Dabholkar [1897] ILR (21) Bombay 154; and Dwarka Nath Mitter and Ors. v.
Tara Prosunna Roy & Ors. [1890) ILR (27) Calcutta 160, distinguished.
B
c
D
E
Mcintyre and Anr. v. Hardca.rtle; [1848] (!) All England Law Reports 696;
followed.
Kanika Devi and Ors. v. Amarendra /l{ath Roy Choudhury and Ors.; 65
Calcutta Weekly Notes 1078; Tarak Chandra Mukherjee v. Ratanlal Ghosal; 1959
CLJ 136; Ttflzerbhai Hebtullabhai and Anr. v. Ambalal Harilal Shah and Anr.;
1966(7) Guiarat 963 ILR; and Deb Ranjan Chatterjee v. Swamarani Biswas &
Anr. 78 Calcutta Weekly Notes 103Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.