Bsb v. Mahendra Vishaldas Shah

Mr.Rajesh Shethia for the applicant. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/by M/s.K.Asher & Co. for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.

The civil revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Trial Court i.e. the Small Causes Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Small Causes Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs by concluding that the defendant i.e. the applicant herein, were not entitled to the protection of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The contention raised by the applicant herein before the Trial Court was that, the suit was barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. This issue has been 2 answered in the negative, inasmuch as, it has been held that one co-owner can file the suit on behalf of others. The Trial Court has relied on certain judgments of the Supreme Court while answering this issue. The Trial Court has also held that the tenancy has been validly terminated by notice dated

20.10.2000.

The Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

Mr.Shethia, appearing for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have erred in concluding that the suit was maintainable despite the fact that there was an inter vivos transfer between the parties. He relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Nanalal Girdharlal & anr. v/s Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala & ors., reported in A.I.R. 1973 Gujrat 131 (Vol.60 C 19) Full Bench.

In my opinion, the submission of Mr.Shethia is untenable. There is no transfer inter vivos. In fact no such contention is raised in the written statement. All that was pleaded in the written statement was that the suit ought to be dismissed in view of the non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the other co-owners. The lease was executed 3 between the parties by five lessors and the applicant lessee. The suit has been filed by three of the lessors. It is now well settled that all the co-owners/landlords/lessors do not have to file a suit for eviction.

In my view, this would not in any manner mean that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of parties.

Civil revision application dismissed.

The learned advocate Mr.Shethia appearing for the Bank seeks some time to vacate the suit premises. He submits that the Bank be permitted to retain the premises for one year. This request is reasonable since it is a nationalized bank which would require to shift its banking operations.

Accordingly, the decree will not be executed for a period of one year from today on the usual undertaking being given by a responsible officer of the bank within four weeks from today.

The Bank shall continue to pay rent to the respondents in accordance with the orders passed by the Trial Court in the application for mesne profits. ..... 4