ivil Appeal No 2311 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 3011986 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No 326 of 1980
Rajinder Sachhar Aruneshwar Gupta and Sunil Malhotra for the Appellant
DK Kapoor Indu Goswamy and Harish N Salve for the Respondents
The order in question was passed by the High Court in second appeal
In order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal it is necessary to refer to certain facts
In 1947 three rooms and a courtyard in Prem ises Nos
22 16 2222 Gali Inder Chammar Teliwara Delhi as an Evacuee Property was given on tenancy to the appellant by the Custodian of the Evacuee property
In 1956 the entire property was jointly purchased by the father of the respond ent and Smt
Sham Kaur from the Custodian of the Evacuee property
Sham Kaur had paid 50 per cent of the consid eration money ie Rs25700 towards the sale amount
It was a joint purchase
Sham Kaur died in 1975 and her legal heirs became the co landlords of the disputed prem ises
In June 1975 the father of the respondents had filed an Eviction Petition against the appellant on the ground that the premises in question was required bona fide by the landlord under section 141e of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 hereinafter called the said Act
Legal heirs of Smt
Sham Kaur were however not impleaded as parties
On 28th of October 1976 the First Additional Rent Controller Delhi dismissed the suit for eviction
Several grounds had been taken in defence by the appellant herein before the First Additional Rent Controller
It was contended inter alia that the respondent had no locus standi to file the petition and that the respondent was not the sole owner of the premises in occupation of the appellant
It was further contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in view of the aforesaid conten tion
Other owners had not been joined as parties and as such the suit was not maintainable it was submitted
It was further urged that the permission granted by the Slum Au thority was invalid
Service of a proper notice dated 12th July 1972 was denied
The respondent had filed reply to the opposition by the appellant
The First Additional Rent Controller held that there was proper service of the notice
But the validity of the notice was challenged on the ground that the premises were previously evacuee property
A cer tificate of sale had been issued in favour of one Sunder Singh and the respondent
The respondent had admitted that the sale certificate was issued in the joint name of Smt
Sham Kaur widow of Sunder Singh and the respondent
It was stated that the premises were let out to the appellant by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property and he had not entered into any separate agreement of lease and the terms of the lease were never settled in the presence of the respondent
In view of this admission it was held that 71 Smt
Sham Kaur and the appellant both became owners of the property in question and both had become landlords of the premises in suit
It was argued that the other co owner ceased to be landlord of the premises because rent was continuously paid to the respondent
The First Additional Rent Controller held against the respondent in respect of this contention
He was of the opinion that one of the co landlords could receive payment on behalf of the other
Receipt of rent by one landlord would not by itself make him the exclusive owner when the premises were in fact owned by more than on owner
The First Additional Rent Controller held that in the premises the respondent alone could not terminate the tenancy of the appellant
The First Additional Rent Controller distinguished the decision of this Court in Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagan Nath  The First Additional Rent Controller held that one co owner could not terminate the tenancy when the property was owned by joint owners
The First Additional Rent Controller also found that the landlord being respondent herein was not able to prove that there was no reasonably suitable accommodation with him
It was also held that his bona fide reasonable requirement was not proved
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the First Additional Rent Controller the respondent herein went up in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal Delhi
The Rent Control Tribunal noticed that the ground for eviction taken up by the respondent was under section 141e of the Act
The property in dispute had been let out for residential purpose and was bona fide required by the respondent for himself and members of his family residing with him
The Tribunal no ticed that the respondent had a large family comprising of 3 sons and 5 daughters and the accommodation with him was insufficient and he had no reasonably suitable accommodation with him
The Rent Control Tribunal after taking into considera tion the judgment of Shri Jaspal Singh Additional District Judge Delhi in connection with the suit filed by Smt
Sham Kaur for specific performance of the agreement to sell came to the conclusion that the bona fide of the requirement was established
The premises was let out according to Tribunal for the residential purpose and it was bona fide required by the landlord for his requirement and for the members of his family and that he had no other sufficiently reasonable accommodation with him to satisfy his needs
On the question whether one co owner could institute the suit for the evic tion in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribu nal came to the conclusion that he could
On the question of the property being let out for residential or 72 commercial purposes after analysing the evidence that the use of the property had been all along residential and the property had been used only for residential purpose the Tribunal was of the view that it would not be proper to accept the position that the purpose of letting was residen tial cum commercial
On the question of the bona fide requirement the Tribu nal took into consideration the members of the family of the respondent and noted that the evidence was that the family consisted of respondent himself his wife 3 sons all of which were married and 5 daughters
Though the daughters of the respondent were married the Tribunal came to the conclu sion that the respondent as landlord had a right to ask for accommodation for the daughters occasional visits
It has also not been proved according to the Tribunal that the sons of the respondent were not staying with him and therefore their requirement had also to be taken into consideration
Thereafter taking into consideration need for a pooja room one sitting room and one barsati and keeping in view the large family of the respondent the Tribunal came to that conclusion that the property in view of the present family dependents of the respondent was bona fide required
On the question whether one co owner being able to maintain the action for eviction the Tribunal came to the conclusion in view of the decision of this Court in Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagannath supra and the decision of this Court in Kanta Goel vs BP Pathak and others   in the facts and circumstances of the case that the respond ent landlord as a co owner alone could have maintained the eviction petition
Aggrieved thereby there was a further second appeal by the appellant to the High Court
The High Court on 30th January 1986 dismissed the second appeal
The High Court held that the action for eviction was justified in view of section 141e of the Act and the need of the landlord was bona fide and further the High Court affirmed the view that a co owner in the facts and circumstances of the case was entitled to maintain an action for eviction
The High Court therefore rejected the second appeal
Aggrieved thereby the tenant is before this Court in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution
Two conten tions were urged by Mr Rajinder Sachhar appearing on behalf of the tenant
It was submitted that in the absence of the other co owner Smt
Sham Kaur the suit for eviction was incompetent
It was secondly urged that the bona 73 fide need was not properly proved and the High Court was in error in upholding the order of eviction on this ground
The first question was gone into by this Court in the decision of Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagannath supra
There the plain tiff respondent was a co owner of the suit properties
He had filed a suit for the eviction on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal requirement
The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit having held that the plea of reasonable requirement by the members of the family for whose benefit the premises were held was established
A single Judge of the High Court reversed the decision but the Division Bench restored the Trial Court s order
There was an appeal by the tenant defendant
This Court held that the co owner was as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of the property was
This Court reiterated that jurisprudentially it was not correct to say that a co owner of the property was not its owner
He owned every part of the composite property along with others and it could not be said that he was only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property
The position would change only when partition would take place and therefore this Court found that it was not possible to accept the submis sion that the plaintiff in that case who admittedly was a landlord and co owner of the premises was not the owner of the premises within the meaning of section 131f of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956
It may be mentioned incidentally that in essential respects the provision of section 131f of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is similar or pari materia to section 141e of the Act
It is not necessary this Court reiterated to establish that the plaintiff was the only owner of the property for the purpose of section 131f of the West Bengal Act as long as he was the co owner of the property being at the same time the acknowledged landlord of the defendants
This plea of the defendant tenant this Court found could not there fore be accepted
This Court was of the opinion that the plea pertained to the domain of the frame of the suit as if the suit was bad for non joinder of other plaintiff such a plea should have been raised according to this Court for whatever it was worth at the earliest opportunity
It was not done in that case
This however is not the position in the instant case before us
This plea was taken in defence and raised as an issue before the Additional Rent Control ler
Secondly it was held by this Court that the relation ship between the parties being that of the 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 section 116 of the Evidence Act
He could not deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy
Under the general law in a suit between 74 landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property was irrelevant
It is therefore inconceivable to throw out the suit on account of non pleading of other co owners as such
There had been clear acknowledgment and admission in that case of the defendants and on concurrent findings of this Court held the action was valid
The same principle was reiterated by this Court in Kanta Goel vs BP Pathak supra
In that case a portion of the first floor of a building was let out by the owners to the appellant before this Court
The owner died leaving 3 sons and a daughter
The first respondent who was in occupation of a government allotment was required by government to vacate these premises
He took proceedings under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 against the tenant of the other portion of the first floor and after evicting that tenant kept those premises vacant
Thereafter he again took proceedings under section 14A against the appellant
The other respondents did not join with the first respondent
The first respondent claimed that he became the sole owner of the first floor under the will of his father followed by a partition between himself and his brother
The appellant contended that the respondent was not the sole owner and that the other respondents should have been made parties to the proceedings
The Rent Controller overruled the appel lant s contention and ordered eviction
The High Court impleaded the other respondents and confirmed the order of eviction
In appeal to this Court it was contended that 1 the 1st respondent was not the appellant s landlord 2 the premises were not in the 1st respondent s name and had not been let out by him 3 the co heirs should have been impleaded before the Controller 4 the Controller should have allowed the appellant to contest the owner s will and 5 Section 14A could be used twice over for eviction of tenants from more than one premises
Allowing the appeal this Court held that on reading in the context of the Rent Control Law the simple sense of the situation was that there should be a building which is let out a landlord who collected rent and a tenant who paid it
The appellant as the tenant had been paying rent to the 1st respondent
The latter together with the other respondents constituted the body of landlords and by consent implicit or otherwise the 1st respondent was collecting rent on behalf of all
He therefore functioned as a landlord and was entitled to institute proceedings qua landlord In his name  and let out  by him read in the spirit of the provision and without violence to the words of the section clearly convey the idea that the premises must be owned by him directly and the lessee must be under him directly 75 which is the case where the 1st respondent as heir steps into the shoes of his father who owned the building
He represents the former owner and lessor falls within section 14A of the Act
The accent on name  is only to pre empt the common class of benami evasions
It was further held that a co owner is as much the owner of the entire property as any sole owner
Therefore there was no substance in the conten tion that the absence of the other co owners disentitled the other co owners from suing for eviction
In the High Court the other co owners who were parties did not object to the claim of the 1st owner to the first floor on the strength of the will
The objection to the will was not a serious objec tion
The other finding is not relevant for the present purpose
In Kanta Goel case supra this Court followed the decision in Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagannath supra
This Court left open the question as to what would happen if some of the co owners wanted the tenant to continue contrary to the relief claimed by the claimant co owner
Relying on the two aforesaid decisions in the facts of this case in so far as the ratio of the two decisions was concerned Mr Rajind er Sachhar contended that as yet there is no principle established by this Court that any one of the co owners could maintain an action for eviction
In the instant case it was contended that it was on record that a suit had been filed by Smt
Sham Kaur against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell a portion of the proper ty and for direction to him to execute the sale deed with respect to a portion of the premises bearing Nos
22 16 to 2222
That suit was decreed by Shri Jaspal Singh Additional District Judge Delhi and Sunder Singh was ordered to exe cute the sale deed in favour of the co owner Smt
Sham Kaur
The High Court however recorded that the case of the parties was that there was an appeal against the judgment and decree and the same was pending and the portion with respect to which the direction has been given was not the portion which is in occupation of the tenant and which is the subject matter of this eviction petition
It appears that even according to the decree this portion ie 3 rooms and the courtyard in question which is the subject matter of dispute in the instant case falls in the share of Sunder Singh who had filed the eviction petition
Furthermore there is no evidence that other cotenant the widow Smt
Sham Kaur or her representatives wanted the appellant to continue
This in our opinion falls within the ratio of Kanta Goel vs BP Pathak supra where this Court clearly held that when the other co owner did not object to the eviction one co owner could maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of other co owner
Here also Smt
Sham Kaur and her heirs did not object to 76 the claim for eviction made by the respondents herein
In that view of the matter and in the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the ratio of the said case will apply and this suit will be maintainable even in the absence of all the owners to the eviction proceedings
In Tej Bhan Madan vs II Additional District Judge and others  this Court reiterated that there can be a denial of the title by the tenant of his landlord without the tenant renouncing his character as such where for instance he sets up a plea of jus tertii
But the implication of the ground on which the denial of the title was made was that if the tenant appellant could not have denied the vendor s title by virtue of the inhibitions of the attornment he could not question the vendee s title either
The tenant did himself no service by this stand
This Court reiterated that the principle that the tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord in its basic founda tions means no more than that under certain circumstances law considers it unjust to allow a person to approbate and reprobate
The law is that the estoppel of a tenant under section 116 of the Evidence Act was a recognition and statu tory assimilation of the equitable principles underlying the estoppel in relation to tenants
In this case the rent had all along been collected by the respondent
On the question of bona fide it was contended before us by Mr Sachhar that in the High Court immediately prior to the filing of the petition the landlord had rented out a few rooms on the ground floor as such it pleaded that there was no bona fide
This point the High Court noted was not raised in the first appeal
Furthermore it was not specifi cally raised in the pleadings
Therefore the High Court found that it was not proper for the parties to raise this question in the second appeal
The High Court was right and we cannot interfere on this ground
The High Court was also invited to interfere with the findings of fact as to the bona fide nature of the need of the landlord
The High Court s attention was drawn on the finding of the 1st Addl
Rent Controller contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment wherein it was held that the landlord was having reasonably suitable accommodation
That plea had been reversed it was contended without going into the merits of the case by the Tribunal
The High Court however noted that during the pendency of the second appeal an application was filed on behalf of the appellant tenant seeking that certain events subsequent to the passing of the impugned judgment may be permitted to be brought on record
The application was directed to be considered at the time of the hearing of the appeal before the High Court
The High Court appointed one Advocate as the Local Commissioner to visit the 77 premises and give his report regarding three rooms on the ground floor of the premises in dispute which according to the appellant had fallen vacant and was then in the occupa tion of the landlord
The landlord s case was that the rooms were in occupation of the legal heirs of the tenants
It was pleaded that those rooms could not be used for residential purposes as they were merely meant to be used as stores
The Commissioner appointed by the High Court filed a report which corroborated the stand of the landlord respondent
The High Court had considered all this
In that view of the matter it was not possible for the High Court to have fur ther interfered with the findings of the appellate court
Our attention was drawn to certain observations of this Court in Vinod Kumar Arora vs Surjit Kumar 1987 3 Supreme Court Cases 711
We do not find that the High Court has committed any error in following the principles enunciated in that decision
Indeed interference by the High Court with the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court would have in this case been unwarranted
There was nothing so far as the service of notice was concerned
In view of the principle enunciated by this Court in V Dhanapal Chettiar vs Yesodal Ammal  we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondentappellant was entitled to maintain this eviction petition alone and he had proved the grounds for eviction and that his need was bona fide and that he had no other suitable accommodation in his possession
In the premises there is no merit in this appeal
The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Two social workers addressed a letter to this Court bringing to its notice the miserable conditions of the people of the district of Kalahandi in the State of Orissa on account of extreme poverty
The said letter was treated as a writ petition
The petitioners in this petition alleged that in the district of Kalahandi on account of extreme poverty there are starvation deaths and in order to save themselves from starvation deaths people are compelled to subject themselves to distress sale of labour and paddy resulting in exploitation of landless labourers deprivation of legitimate price of paddy to small peasants
It was also alleged that on account of chill penury  people of Kala handi district are even forced to sell their children
In the other writ petition Indian Peoples  Front al leged miserable conditions of the people of Koraput district in addition to the Kalahandi district
It was alleged that the starvation deaths drought diseases and famine have been the continuing phenomenon in the said two districts
The petitioners accused the Government of Orissa of its failure to 58 protect the lives of the people of the two districts of Kalahandi and Koraput and sought directions that the State of Orissa should be directed to take immediate steps to alleviate the miseries and sorrows of the people of the said two districts
With a view to ascertaining the correct state of affairs and to know whether the State has implemented the social welfare measures and the adequacy of such measures to meet the needs of the people the Court directed the District Judge of Kalahandi to submit a report
The learned District Judge in its report submitted that the State Government has implemented social welfare measures and there was hardly any case of starvation death
The correctness of the facts found by the District Judge in his report was challenged by the petitioners particular ly the question of starvation deaths
The petitioners sug gested that for the purpose of supervising relief work a Committee of 11 member should be constituted comprising members of well known social organisations
On behalf of the State it was stated by the Attorney General that district level Natural Calamities Committees consisting of Collector Officials MPs and MLAs are already existing and these Committees review the progress of relief work and the measures taken to meet the drought conditions
It was submitted that members of voluntary social organisa tions can be inducted in these existing Committees instead of constituting a new Committee as suggested by the peti tioners
The attention of the Court was also drawn to para 39 of the Orissa Relief Code dealing with enquiry in cases of starvation deaths and relief measures to be taken in such cases
It was stated that for the purpose of alleviating the miseries and sorrows of the people in the district of Kala handi State has already undertaken appropriate social meas ures namely allocation of Rs8054 lakhs for Kalahandi during the Sixth Plan constant vigilance under the direct supervision of the Chief Minister for redressal of the distress of the people undertaking of massive scale labour intensive work to provide employment free feeding programme in areas of acute distress Emergency Feeding Programme in drought affected areas and crop damage areas undertaking of a number of major medium and small irrigation projects digging of tube wells for drinking water starting affores tation programme to prevent recurrence of drought condi tions fixation of minimum purchase price for paddy provid ing adequate funds to purchasing agents to purchase surplus paddy at prescribed rates direct procurement of entire paddy through Food Corporation of India and State Co opera tive 59 Marketing Federation strict implementation of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Marketing Act and free supply of seeds to agriculturists in drought affected areas
Disposing these petitions the Court HELD 1
It is not disputed that the people of Kalahandi and Koraput are very poor and most of them have been living below the poverty line
Though the report of the District Judge is against the starvation deaths the happening of one or two cases of starvation deaths cannot altogether be ruled out
1E F 2
Paragraph 39 of the Orissa Relief Code makes ample provision for taking steps in case of starvation deaths
63D 3
The State Government shall nominate at least S per sons belonging to the recognised voluntary social organisa tion like Sarvodaya Gandhi Peace Foundation Ramakrishna Mission Bharat Sewa Sangha and registered voluntary agen cies as contained in the State approved list of voluntary agencies as members of the said existing district level Natural Calamities Committees of the Districts of Kalahandi and Koraput
64B C 4
The said Committees shall hold one meeting every two mouths and shall be responsible for looking into the starva tion deaths and the welfare of the people of these dis tricts
These committees shall also keep a watch over the working of the social welfare measures taken and which are likely to be taken by the State Government
66A B The social welfare measures and prompt action taken by Government of Orissa will help in ending the miseries of the people