Ajit K. Nayak, J.@mdashThe short question, we are called upon to answer in this second appeal is whether a suit for eviction of tenant is
maintainable at the instance of a co-owner-landlord alone without impleading the other co-owners and a notice served upon the tenant to that
effect terminating his tenancy and asking the tenant to quit'' is valid and sufficient.
2. Plaintiff instituted this suit for eviction of the Defendant-tenant holding the suit premises as a monthly tenant, on the ground of default and
reasonable requirement.
3. On an application being filed by the Plaintiff-landlord u/s 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (for short Act), the Defendant-tenant
was Found to be a defaulter and his defence against delivery of possession was struck out. The Defendant-tenant moved the Hon''ble. Court
against that order, but the same was confirmed by this Court giving opportunity to the Defendant-tenant to contest the suit only on the ground of
notice. The trial Court, however, decreed the suit on both the grounds, viz. that of default and reasonable requirement.
4. On an appeal-being preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial Court by the tenant-Defendant, the appellate Court held that the
notice served upon the tenant-Defendant u/s 13(6) of the Act, was invalid and insufficient, as because the said notice was not served by or on
behalf of all the co-owner-landlords jointly. On such finding the appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit.
5. The Plaintiff-landlord has, therefore, preferred this second appeal.
6. Undisputedly, the premises in question belonged to one Sewbus Poddar who inducted the Defendant as a tenant in the suit premises., On the
death of this Sewbus, the Plaintiff, Deoki Nandan Poddar. his mother, sister and two father''s sisters became the joint owners of such property. It
is also an undisputed fact that the Plaintiff alone had been realising rent from the Defendant-tenant and the Defendant also raised no objection on
that score about the authority of the plain- tiff-Appellant to realise rent. Admittedly, the Defendant tendered rent to the Plaintiff alone and deposited
rent in his name alone before the Rent Controller. It is also an undisputed fact that the Plaintiff filed an application u/s 17(3) of the Act for striking
out the defence of the Defendant against the delivery of possession for allegedly defaulting in payment of rent for a period of two years and two
months. On a full and complete hearing of such petition in which evidence led by both parties was recorded by the trial Court, it was decided that
the Defendant was a defaulter for which such petition was allowed. Undisputedly, also, the Defendant-tenant moved against that order before this:
Court which affirmed the order of the trial Court leaving only this question of notice to be agitated by the Defendant-tenant before-the trial Court.
7. In view of the finding of the appellate Court on the point of invalidity of notice served by the Plaintiff-landlord, it had been urged by Mr.
Rameswar Saha, learned Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant, that such finding of the appellate Court is completely erroneous and is not
supported by the decisions of the highest Court on the land.
8. We have already seen that the appellate Court in coming to his finding regarding the invalidity of notice on the ground that it was not served by
or on behalf of all the co-owner-landlords, relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Santilal Dulichand Shah Vs. Ramesh Chandra
Guzrati, It is held therein that where the original lesson has left several heirs and the Plaintiff is only representing one section of the body of co-
sharers, the mere fact of payment of rent to the Plaintiff, by itself, is not sufficient to entitle the Plaintiff to get a decree for eviction on the ground
that he is not representing the entire body of owners. Their Lordships irathat decision were of further opinion that the position would be different if
the original demise was by the Plaintiff alone although he was one of the co-owners of the demised property. In other words, it was held that
where the person receiving the payment of rent was not the only person who let the payer into possession, but is one among many, claiming title by
succession, the mere act of payment to such person, without more, is not conclusive and does not stop the payer afterwards from repudiating the
payee''s title explaining away such payment due to mistake, ignorance or otherwise. The appellate Court obviously drew his inspiration in coming
to his finding from the aforesaid decision of this Court and further found that, even if the Defendant-tenant had made payment to the Plaintiff-
Appellant, it can be explained away by the Defendant-tenant and that as a matter of fact he had explained the same. In other words, it is finding of
the appellate Court that such payment was made due to the misrepresentation held out by the Plaintiff-landlord for which the Defendant-tenant was
misguided to make such payment.
9. The view so expressed by the appellate Court in coming to his finding in this case is, however, not the correct position of law as shown by the
decision of the Supreme Court, we may refer and rely in this connection upon the decisions in Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and Others, and
Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak and Others, Unfortunately, the appellate Court did not take notice of such decisions of the Supreme Court, though
one of such decisions was referred to and relied upon by the trial Court. It has been held in those decisions that the co-owner is as much an owner
of the entire property as the sole owner. It cannot be said that the co-owner is not its owner. It has also been observed that it is not necessary in a
case like this for the Plaintiff to establish that he is the only owner of the property for the purpose of bringing a suit for eviction u/s 13(1) (ff). It was
also held in the realer decision in Sri Ram Pasnicha v. Jagannath the Plaintiff being the acknowledged and accepted landlord having realized rent
from the Defendant-tenant, the Defendant-tenant is estopped from challenging his title. As already stated, the Defendant-tenant in this case raised
no such objection regarding non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but on the contrary had deposited rent for a
long period to the credit of the Plaintiff-Appellant. The decision reported in the case of Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak is put on the point, where the
original landlord who inducted the tenant died and his heirs succeeded to his estate, and one co-heir or co-owner to whom the rent was being paid
by the tenant-was held to be the landlord for all practical purposes and was therefore entitled to institute a suit for eviction. So relying upon these
decisions, it can be said that the Plaintiff as a co-owner-landlord had full authority to bring the suit for eviction against the Defendant-tenant being at
the same time an acknowledge, landlord by the tenant-Defendant. The frame of the suit and the same being instituted at the instance of the Plaintiff-
landlord having, therefore, been found to be perfectly in order, the logical consequence following there from is that a notice served at the instance
of such Plaintiff-landlord upon the Defendant-tenant to quit and vacate u/s 13(6) of the Act cannot be otherwise than valid and sufficient. There can
be no infirmity on the score that it was not served by all the co-owner-landlords jointly.
10. It has been neatly urged by Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the Defendant-tenant, that even though the defence against the
delivery of possession has been struck out pursuant to an order passed u/s 17(3) of the Act, the Defendant should be given opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses of the Plaintiff to prove that the tenant was not a defaulter and further that the Plaintiff-landlord had no reasonable
requirement to have the suit premises. Reference has been made in this connection to a decision in the case of Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh
Deo, . It is true that in such a decision it has been held that even though a defence against the delivery of possession has been struck out, still the
Defendant-tenant should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses tendered by the Plaintiff, though the Defendant cannot and should
hot be allowed to make out a case as stated in his written statement. On a perusal of the records and the elaborate evidence recorded'' by the trial
Court u/s 17(3) proceeding as well as during the hearing of the case itself, it appears that the Defendant left no stone unturned to demolish the case
of the Plaintiff in this regard. The contention of Mr. Chatterjee is that the Defendant should be given opportunity to prove that he was not a
defaulter and further that, even if he was so, he should be given another opportunity to make such deposit by filing another petition u/s 17(2A) of
the Act. Such contentions are not acceptable at all as the same are against the letter and spirit of the Act itself. Facts of the instant case are distinct
and different from that of the case referred to and relied upon by Mr. Chatterjee in the case of B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Birendra Kumar
Bhowmick and Another, In that case (unlike the instant case) rent for the admitted period of default was deposited pursuant to an order passed by
the Court u/s 17(2A)(b) of the Act. The delayed deposits in respect of two months were condoned in terms of the provisions of Section 17(4) of
the Act. In the instant case, no deposits were made whatsoever for the period of default ranging from March 1971 to November 1972. Even rents
for December, January and February were lumped together for deposit on April 12, 1973, before the Rent Controller which were found to be
invalid deposits. No petition whatsoever u/s 17 of the Act was made to make amends, that is to make deposits for the period of default. This was
the finding of the trial Court which was earlier affirmed by this Court, and the Defendant-tenant was found to be a defaulter. As such, there cannot
be any question of any further opportunity being given to the Defendant-tenant to prove that he is not a defaulter. The other contention of Mr.
Chatterjee regarding reasonable requirement has also been clearly and categorically found to be an ex parte and one-sided affair by the trial Court.
In other words, the Plaintiff led evidence that he was residing in a rented premises with 16 members in his family and that the rented
accommodation being not sufficient, he wanted the suit premises for his own use and occupation. He further stated that he had no other premises
and as such no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. This evidence of the Plaintiff-landlord remains unchallenged in cross-
examination. There cannot be any question therefore of giving any further opportunity to the Defendant-tenant to show it otherwise. In short, there
is nothing to show on record that, in view of any other subsequent event, this reasonable requirement of the Plaintiff-landlord does not exist at
present. So in any view of the matter the contentions of Mr. Chatterjee appear to be altogether untenable. So it is neither necessary nor desirable
to send the case back on remand as it has been urged by Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the Defendant-tenant.
11. The result is the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court are set aside. The suit brought by the Plaintiff is decreed.
No order is made as to costs. The Plaintiff do get recovery of possession of suit premises. But in view of the submission made by the learned
Advocate for the Defendant-Appellant, the Defendant-tenant is given two months time from this date to vacate the suit premises, subject however
to payment of Rx. 50 per month as occupation charges in the trial Court to be withdrawn by the Plaintiff-Appellant.
12. Let the records be sent down to the Court below as early as possible.
Appeal allowed.
.jpg)