RRk v. Civil Revist oll

t he first indicat ed it em of grievance t he I earned Senior Counsel appearingon behalf of t he pet it ionerrelied upon Kundan Sinqh Vs Lal Sinqh 2005111RR 194 The plea was resist ed by t he I earned counsel appearI ng on behalf of t he respondent by relyingupon Kewal Krishan Vs Mohan Sinqh 2006 121RR 1Civill442 have given m y careful considerat ion t o t he point I n cont roversy find t he plea on behalf of t he pet it ioner4enantt o be unt enableThe reasons t herefor are as undeo I t is beyondt he pale of cont roversyt hat t he respondent I andlord is one of t he coowners t he prem isesin disput e which 1 Um a 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh I I WI JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 1j 01 S 1 1 0Ar 1 1 11 46 46 Civil Relisilr a05743 of 2008 w4 S S1r4kk 1 v 1 1 owned by his fat her On t he deat h of his fat her t he propert y 1 cam e over byinherit ance t o t he and his brot hers 1 et c One of his brot hers obt ained a succession cert ificat e which by t he very nat ure of t hings would suggest t hat t he applicantfor t he succession cert ificat e would hold t he propert yfor self and on behalf of ot hers ent it led t o it Fhe person in whose favour t he successiOll cert ificat e had been issued cannot set up an exclusive t it le respectof t he propert yt o t he exclusion of t he ot her coownerslheirs r The point of Vlew proj ect edon behalf of t he landlord is suppoit edby Kewal Krishans case 4supral I n t hat case an NRHandlord was a coowner t he propert y under reference The ot her coowners applied for ej ect m entof t he t enant on t he m 1 e e1 m 1 1L j groundsavailable t o t her lt was t hereaft er t hat t he NRl com owner filed a pleafor ej ect m entof t he t enant from t he t enant ed prem iseson t he aut horit yof provisionsof Sect ion 1 3 of t he Act The ot her m owners had soughtej ect m enton t he groundsavailable t o t hen wht le t he NRl coowner applied for evict ion act ion on t he basis of provI st ons of Sect ion 133 of t he Act which could be availed of by him only The filing of by an NRl in t he aforesaid circum st ances would appear t o have been validat ed by t he I aw I ald down by a Coordinat e Bench of t his Court in Kewal Krishans supral I n t hat case reliance had been placed upon Kundan Singhs 6supralwhich had been relied upon by t he I earned Senior Counsel for t he pet it ioner Learned SingleJudge vvhile relyingupon Dhannalal V Kalawat ibai and ot hers 2002161Suprem e Court I l I l J 1 r i1 t1 1 1 J 141 L e 9L74 Um a 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh 5555 r 1 2 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 nI V I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15I 9 0 V14 I v 1 j I l 11 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 7 i 1 r 1 1 1 I o 1 1 1 47 97 Civil Revlsion No5743 of 2008 Sm I w 4rMk Cases 16 upheldt he ent it lem ent of t he NRHandlord t o file an ej ect m entact ionThe Bench also not iced t he following observat ions m ade by t he Apex Court in sim ilar circum st ances Dhannalars case supralle I t is weil set t led by at I east t hree decisions of t his CouM nam ely Sri Ram Pasricha Vs Jagannat h 1976 RCR Rent l 832 197614 Suprem eCourt Cases 18 Kant a Goel Vs BPPat hak 197911RCR 3ent l 485 37712 1 Suprem eCourt Cases 814 and Pal Singh l Sunder d4 a r 0 7V 1 a5 Cll I C m Z m J Singh 1989 21RCR Rent l3311 198911 Suprem eCourt Cases 444t hat one of t he coowners can alone and in his own rightfile a suit for ej ect m entof t he t enant and it I S defence t o t he t enant t o quest ion t he 01 t he suit on t he groundt hat t he ot her CO owners were not j oinedas part iest o t he suit When t he propert y form ing t he subj ect m at t er evict ion proceedingsis owned by several owners every c0owner owners every part and every bit t he j oint propeny alongwit h ot hers and it cannot be said t hat he is only a part owner or a fract ionalowner of t he propert yso I ongas t he propert y has not been part it ioned He can alone m aint ain a suit for evict ion of t he t enant wit houl j oining t he ot her coowners if such ot her c0m owners do not obj ect I l I nsofar as t he ot her coowners are concerned t hey have Um a 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh 4 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e9 e 2 1 1 48 98 ivil Revision No743 of 2008 m 6 Pe k9t R 4 m ade an endeavour t o evict t he t he available t o t hem but t hey did not t ast e success in t he7r 4 endeavour That fact does not d7sable t he herein t o avail of t he beneficial provisions Sect ion 1 3 3 oft he Act lbecause t hat part icularprovisionis available t o him for I odginga claim for t he ej ect m entof t he from t he prem ises aforem ent ioned 1 I nsofaras t he I aunching01 ej ect m entact ion qua different pm isesI S concerned t here can be no disput ewit h t he proposit ion t hat an NRlllandlord can evict a t enant only once I n a sum m ary rnanner from t he t enant ed building However t hat rest rict ed would not appiy t f t he prem isest o be got vacat ed form a partof one I nt egrat edI argebuilding The presentis exact lya case of t hat cat egoryThere is no cont roversyt hat t he t enant ed prem lses involved in t hese t hree cases a part of sam e prem ises The plea 1 raised behalf of t he shall st an Elegat ived accordingly 1 aP 3 1 1 11 Y 4j 4 1 j l 1 0 9 r e I l 71 1 1 r I n t he I ightof foregoingdiscussion I have not been able I i t o persuadem yself10 fault t he im pugnedorder on any valid count The present is a pure and sim ple case wherein t he respondent I andlord is t he only one who is an NRl and who want ed t o avail of t he beneficial provisionscont ained in Sect ion 133 of t he Act The pet it iondeserves t o be negat ivedand it I S SO ordered accordingly I f any j udicialpronouncem entin supportof t his Vlew of rnine is required reference is m ade wit h t he advant aget o 1 r 1 1 Um a 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh k01 r t e I M ro 1 81 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e4 49 g 1iviiRevion NoS743 of 2008 w7 V I t Rt 1 71 1 1 1 1 1 19 j 1 01 17 1 Hrbhaian SinqhVs Gurdial Sinqh 2006 111R Rent l 436 and MukeshKum ar Vs osh Kum ari and ot hers 2007 121 RCRCivill 692 The in each case shall have t wo m ont hs from t odayt o vacat e t he prem isesunder t heir individualt enancy A copy of t his order be placed on t he record of each connect ed file 072010 Pka I l 0 DAnandl Judge a 1 r 7 277 I n 31 1 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V f 1e 1 r 1 5 5 1 2 r 1 1 Um a 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh 11 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 2 1