Sriram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath &
Ors  INSC 195 (24 August 1976)
CITATION: 1976 AIR 2335 1977 SCR (1) 395 1976
SCC (4) 184
R 1977 SC1599 (7) R 1978 SC 835 (2) F 1982 SC
25 (7) C 1991 SC1966 (2)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 Sec. 116--Whether
tenant can deny the landlord's title.
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956--Sec. 13(1)(f)--Whether
one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction without impleading other
co-owners--Whether a coowner, an owner for the purpose of an eviction
suit--Stage for raising objection about frame of suit.
The plaintiff respondent is one of the
co-owners of the premises which were let out to the appellant tenant. The
plaintiff filed a suit for eviction under s. 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal
Premises Tenancy 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 reasonableness of the requirement of the
members of the family for whose benefit the premises were held by him and,
therefore, granted a decree for eviction.
An appeal filed by the appellants failed. In
the second appeal filed by the appellants it was contended that although reasonable
requirement of the premises were established, the respondent was not entitled
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 coowners but such owners must again be the landlords who only are
entitled to a decree for recovery of the possession under s. 13(1)(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 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
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: The contention of the appellant that
the co-sharer plaintiff must 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
should 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 of title to the lease property is
irrelevant. The plaintiff is one of the co-owners of the premises. The other
co-sharers 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 partition takes place. It
is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff who is
admittedly the landlord and co-owner of the premises is not the owner of the
premises within the meaning of s. 13(1)(f).
[399 A--C. 401 B & 402 A-B] Bollye Satee
and Anr. v. Akram Ally and Anr.  ILR (4) Calcutta 961; Kattusheri
Pishareth Kanna Pisharody v.
Vallotil Manakel Narayan Somayajipad and
Ors.,  81 ILR (3) Madras 234; Balkrishna Sakharam v. Moro Krishna 396
Dabholkar  ILR (21) Bombay 154; and Dwarka Nath Mitter and Ors. v. Tara
Prosunna Roy & Ors. [1890J/LR (27) Calcutta 160, distinguished.
Mclntyre and Anr. v. Hardcctstle;  (1)
All England Law Reports 696; followed.
Kanika Devi and Ors. v. Amarendra Nath Roy
Choudhury and Ors; 65 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1078; Tarak Chandra Mukherjee v.
Ralanlal Ghosal; 1959 CLJ 136; Taherbhai Hebtullabhai and Anr. v. Ambalal
Harilal Shah and Anr.; 1966(7) Gujarat 963 LLR; and Deb Ranjan Chatterjee v.
Swarnarani Biswas & Anr.
78 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1034; approved.
Nanalal Girdharlal and Anr. v. Gulamnablti
Jamalbhai Motorwala and Ors. A.I.R. 1973 Gujarat 131; distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1223 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4-3-75 of
the Calcutta High Court in I.,.P.A. No. 74/74.
V.N. Tarkunde, and H.K. Puri, for the
V S. Desai, 1). N. Mukherjee and N.R.
Choudhary, for respondent No. I.
A.K. Sen and 5. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J. This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant by certificate from the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
The question that arises for decision is
whether a landlord who is a co-owner of the premises with others is "the
owner" within the meaning of section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises
Tenancy Act, 1956 (briefly the Act). It will turn on the interpretation of the
expression "if he is the owner" under section 13(1 )(f) of the Act.
Briefly the facts are as follows :-The
plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) is
admittedly the landlord of one late Bhagat Ram Pasricha predecessor-in-interest
of the present appellant and respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter to be referred to
as the defendants). The tenancy was in respect of a part of the premises No.
221/1, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta, being the entire second floor of the
building. The tenancy commenced some time in 1946 and Bhagat Ram Pasricha
promised to vacate the said premises within March 31, 1947 and positively after
March 31, 1948. Bhagat Ram Pasricha, however, did not vacate and died on
February 18, 1960, leaving behind the defendants as his heirs. The plaintiff is
only a co-share owner of the suit premises being one of the heirs of his father
late Motilal Sen who, originally owned the property.
The plaintiff instituted a .suit for eviction
of the defendants in December 1962 on the twin pleas of default in payment of
rent and reasonable requirement of the premises for his own occupation as well
as for the occupation of the members of the joint family consisting of his
mother and his married brother. The suit was contested by the defendants. The
trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds. On the question of reasonable
397 requirement the trial court held that the plaintiff being only a co-share
owner cannot be said to be the owner within the meaning of section 13(1)(1) of
the Act. The trial court, however, held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving
the case of reasonable requirement of the members of the family "for whose
benefit the premises were held by him" within the meaning of the second
part of section 13(1) (f).
On appeal by the defendants the lower
appellate court did not accept the plea of default but affirmed the finding of
reasonable requirement although the learned Judge was not specific as to which
the two material parts of section 13(1)(f) would govern the case.
In the second appeal by the defendants before
the learned single Judge of the High Court the question of factual existence of
reasonable requirement was not disputed. It was, however, contended before the
learned single Judge that even though the actual reasonable requirement of the
premises was established the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for
eviction being only a co-sharer and as such not "the owner" of the premises
within the meaning of section 13(1) (f). It was submitted that a co-owner was
only a part-owner and was not entitled to an order of eviction under section
13(1)(f) of the Act. The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the
defendants and dismissed the suit observing :-"it will not be sufficient
if the reasonable requirement is of all members, of the family of the co-owners
but such coowners must again be the landlords who only are made entitled to a
decree for recovery of the possession under section 13 (1) (f).
In the letters patent appeal before the
Division Bench the High Court did not agree with the single judge and set aside
the decision and decreed the suit for eviction. The 'Division Bench held:
In our opinion a co-owner is as much an
absolute owner as a sole owner is with reference to the interest held by
Mr. Tarkunde, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant submits that the decision of the Division Bench is
erroneous and we should accept the views of the single Judge. He submits that a
landlord in order 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. A co-owner
landlord without impleading all the owners of the premises is not entitled to
ask for eviction under section 13 (1)(f) of the Act. Mr. A.K. Sen, who appears
on behalf of the sisters of the appellant (respondents 2 and 3) also emphasised
upon this part of the case while adopting the arguments of Mr. Tarkunde.
Mr. Desai, on the other hand. contests this
proposition and submits that the decision of the Division Bench is correct.
398 Mr. Tarkunde referred to certain
decisions in support of the submission that a suit by one of the co-sharers for
eviction of a tenant has always been held to be incompetent. Counsel relied
upon the decision in Bollye Satee and another v. Akram, Ally and other. C) This
was a case in which it was held that a lessee of a jalkar cannot be ejected by
a suit brought by one only of the several proprietors all of whom had granted
the lease. This case, with its own facts, is, therefore, of no aid in the
In Kattusheri Pishareth Kanna Pisharody v.
Vallotil Manakel Narayanan Somayajipad and others,(2) the suit was brought by the
plaintiffs on behalf of an association (sabha) to recover certain lands demised
by the sabha. It was held that all the co-owners must join in a suit to recover
property unless the law otherwise provides. This decision will again be of no
assistance to the appellant.
In Balakrishna Sakharatm v. Moro Krishna
Dabholkar(3) it was a case of one of the co-sharer-jagirdars who as a manager
filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 99/being the balance due to him on account of
the highest rate of assessment for the three years preceding the suit. The
defendant disputed the plaintiff's right to demand the highest rate of
assessment and contended that the plaintiff had no right to sue alone as he and
his co-sharers owned the jagir and the defendant cultivated the land in that
village by paying the jagirdars something less than the full assessment prior
to the years in the suit. It was in that context that the following observation
appears in the judgment which is relied upon by counsel:
"We must, therefore, treat it as settled
law that a co-sharer who is manager even with the consent of his co-sharers cannot
maintain a suit by himself and in his own name to eject a tenant who has failed
to comply with a notice calling on him to pay enhanced rent".
This proposition of law also purports to be
in line with the two earlier decisions relied upon by counsel and is of little
aid to him.
In Dwarka Nath Mitter and others vs. Tara
Prosunna Roy and others,(4) the objection of the defendant was to the form of
the suit and it was pressed from the very commencement by the defendant. This
was a suit by the plaintiffs for balance of arrears of rent making other
co-sharers as defendants. The court held that unless the co-sharers had refused
to join in the suit or had otherwise acted prejudicially to their interests the
plaintiffs were not entitled to sue alone. In this view of the matter the suit
was dismissed. We do not see how this decision can come to the assistance of
It is strenuously submitted by Mr. Tarkunde that
unless the landlord is also the absolute owner of the premises, he cannot evict
the tenant under section 13(1)(f).
Landlord means landlords under the
appropriate General Clauses Act and, therefore, since there are (1) (1879)
I.L.R. 4 Cal. 961. (2) (1878-81) I.L.R. 3 Mad. 234.
(3) (1897) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 154. (4) (1890)
I.L.R. 17 Cal. 160.
399 other co-sharers the plaintiff alone
could not file the suit for eviction.
There are two reasons for our not being able
to accept the above submission. Firstly, the plea pertains to the domain of the
frame of the suit as if the suit is bad for non-joinder of other plaintiffs.
Such a plea should have been raised, for what it is worth, at the earliest
opportunity. 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 it estopped from
questioning the title of the landlord under section 116 of the Evidence Act.
The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the
commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between landlord
and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. It is,
therefore, inconceivable to throw out the suit on account of non-pleading of
other co-owners as such.
Being faced with this position counsel
submits that since the requirements are found to be of the co-owners, the suit
cannot be decreed in their absence. This is a repetition of the first
submission in a different form.
Counsel relied upon Mclntyre and another v.
The English rule laid down in that decision
is that if two or more landlords institute a suit for possession on the ground
that a dwelling house is required for occupation of one of them as a residence
the suit would fail. The requirement, according to the decision, must be of all
The High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat have
dissented from the rule of English law in Mclntyre's case (supra) (See Kanika
Devt and Ors. v. Amarendra Nath Roy Choudhuri and Ors,(2) Tarak Chandra vs.
Ratanlal Ghosal;(3) Taherbhai Hebtullabhai and another v. Ambalal Harilal Shah
Deb Ranjan Chatterjee v. Swaranarani Biswas
Indeed the rule in Mclntyre's case (supra) is
abhorrent to the Indian conception and structure of social life of our country
with its benign sensitivity and ties, which is not based on pure individualism.
A widowed sister, suddenly shipwrecked in the mid-stream of married life, with
no other help, returns to parental home or to her brothers' where sympathetic
and affectionate shelter is readily available to her. In such a case the
additional requirement of the widowed sister and her children may furnish a
reasonable requirement of the father or the brothers for the purpose of
eviction of their tenant. It is enough if the requirements are of any one of
the members of the family or of dependents to furnish a reasonable plea for
eviction on the ground of personal requirement.. We endorse the parting of the
ways from the English rule on this aspect of the matter by the High Courts.
This is in accord with healthy Indian tradition.
(1) (1848) 1 All E.R. 696. (2) 65 C.W.N.
(3) 1959 G.L.J. 136. (4) I.L.R.  7
Guj.-963 (5) 78 C.W.N. 1034.
400 Keeping in the forefront the observations
of the Bombay High Court in Vagha jesing v. Manilal Bhagilal Desai(1) (at page
252) where reference has been made to the landlords' rights belonging jointly
to several persons and hence warranting a suit by all the coowners, Mr.
Tarkunde drew our attention to the admission of the plaintiff in his deposition
regarding the death of his father in 1949 and that Bhagat Ram Pasricha was
inducted by him as instructed by his father to do so. From this he submitted
that all the heirs of late Motilal Sen were the landlords and, therefore, they
should have been impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. We are unable to give
effect to this submission taken for the first time in this Court in view of the
clear acknowledgement and admission of the defendants and concurrent findings
of the courts that the plaintiff is their landlord.
Mr. Tarkunde also relied' upon a Full Bench
decision of the Gujarat High Court in Nanalal Girdharlal and another v. Gulamnabi
Jamalbhai Motorwala and others(") and read to us the following passage at
"It is, therefore, clear that the rule
that a co-owner may maintain an action to eject a trespasser without joining
other co-owners in such action can have no application where a co-owner seeks
to evict a tenant who is in possession of the property after determination of
the lease. Such a tenant can be evicted only by an action taken by all
co-owners" But this rule is not applicable in the present case as would
appear from the decision itself. The Gujarat decision at para 10 of the
judgment excludes two categories described therein and the rule of estoppel
applies to these two categories. The present case, even according to this decision,
fails under the excepted category.
Before we come to the real question at issue
we may turn to section 13(1)(f) of the Act as it was at the material time:
Sec. 13. protection of tenant against
eviction(1) Notwithstanding anything to. the contrary in any other law, no
order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by
any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of
the following grounds, namely -(f) where the premises are reasonably required
by the landlord either for purposes of building or rebuilding or for making
thereto substantial additions or alterations or for his own 'occupation if he
is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises
(1) 37 Born. L.R. 249. (2) A.I.R.1973 Guj.
401 This is not a case attracting the second
part of section 13(1)(f), that is to say, the clause providing for the
occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held. We will not,
therefore, refer to the submission of the appellant and to the decisions relied
. upon by him with reference to that clause.
The present case, on the facts found, is
covered by the first part of section 13(1 )(f), namely, where the premises are
reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner.
There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the
It is, however, found that he is one of the
co-owners of the premises the other co-sharers being his mother and married
brother, who reside in the Same premises along with him. The premises m suit,
namely, the second floor of the building in occupation of the tenant is
required by the plaintiff for occupation of the members of the joint family and
for their benefit. A major portion of the ground floor of the building accommodates
the joint family business and the first floor is found by the court to be
inadequate to the requirements of the large family of eighteen members
including the widowed mother.
That the particular requirement is reasonable
is no longer in controversy. The only question is whether a decree can still be
passed in favour of the plaintiff since he is not the absolute and full owner
of the premises, sharing, as he does, the interest in the premises along with
The principal question, therefore, is whether
the plaintiff being a co-owner landlord can be said to reasonably require the
premises for his own occupation within the expression "if he is the
owner" in section 13 ( 1 ) (f).
Mr. V.S. Desai reads to us from Salmond on
Jurisprudence (13th edition) and relies on the following passage in Chapter 8
(Ownership), paragraph 46 at page 254:
"As a general rule a thing is owned by
one person only at a time, but duplicate ownership is perfectly possible. Two
or more persons may at the same time have ownership of the same thing vested in
them. This may happen in several distinct ways, but the simplest and most
obvious case is that of co-ownership. Partners, for example, are co-owners of
the chattels which constitute their stock-in trade of the lease of the premises
on which their business is conducted, and of the debts owing to them by their
customers. It is not correct to say that property owned by co-owners is divided
between them, each of them owning a separate part. It is an undivided unity,
which is vested at the same time in more than one person ...... The several
ownership of a part is a different thing from the co-ownership of the whole. So
soon as each of two co-owners begins to own a part of the thing instead of the
whole of it, the co-ownership has been dissolved into sole 402 ownership by the
process known as partition. Co-ownership involves the undivided integrity of
what is owned".
Jurisprudentially it is not correct to say
that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the
composite property along with others and it cannot he said that he is only a
part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will, change
only when partition takes place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the
submission that the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord and co-owner of
the premises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of section
13(1)(f). It is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner
of the property for the purpose of section 13(1)(f) as long as he is a co-owner
of the property being at the same time the acknowledged landlord of the
Mr. Tarkunde also submitted that since the
Calcutta High Court has held in Yogamaya Pakhira v. Santi Subha Bose(1) that a
permanent lessee is not an owner within the meaning of section 13 (1)(f) a
co-owner would not be in a better position. We are of opinion that a co-owner
is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is.
We, however, express no opinion about the case of a permanent lessee as this
point does not arise in this appeal.
As all the submissions of the appellant fail,
the appeal is dismissed. We will, however, make no order as to costs.
P.H.P. Appeal dismissed.
(1) I.L.R. (1968) 2 Cal. 70.