Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

1976 (8) TMI 162 - SUPREME COURT

1976 (8) TMI 162 - SUPREME COURT - 1976 AIR 2335, 1977 SCR (1) 395 - Civil Appeal No. 1223 of 1975 - Dated:- 24-8-1976 - GOSWAMI, P.K., CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. AND GUPTA, A.C. JJ. V.N. Tarkunde, and H.K. Puri, for the Appellants. V S. Desai, N. Mukherjee, N.R. Choudhary, A.K. Sen and 5. P. Nayar for the Respondents. JUDGMENT: 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 ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cha 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, 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

brother. The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds. On the question of reasonable requirement the trial court held that the plaintiff being only a co-sharer 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontended 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nion a co-owner is as much an absolute owner as a sole owner is with reference to the interest held by him". 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 al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-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. (1879) I.L.R. 4 Cal. 961 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 present controversy. In Kattusheri Pishareth Kanna Pisharody v. Vallotil Manak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r filed a suit for recovery of ₹ 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

little aid to him. In Dwarka Nath Mitter and others vs. Tara Prosunna Roy and others (1890) I.L.R. 17 Cal. 160. 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 entitl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sons 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 be- tween 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 ques .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. Hardcastle (1848) 1 All E.R. 696. 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 landlords. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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 avail- able 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 p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 252) where reference has been made to the land- lords' rights belonging jointly to several persons and hence warranting a suit by all the co-owners, 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, there- fore, they should have been impleaded a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny 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 are held". This is not a case attracting the second part of section 13(1)(f), that is to say, the cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version