BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OE CHHATPISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION [2271 No. fW/é i/ OF 2009 / PETITIONER ——-— Pritam Singh Billladhwa S/o Harman V\8"/ DEFENDANT Singh, aged about 5L! yea‘w V Occupation - Business, at present residing at Railway Banglapara, Raigarh, Tahsil 8r, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ———— / 1. Omprakash Gupta S/o late. PLAINTIFFS Nathuram Gupta, aged about 52 years. Ramprakash S/ 0 Late Nathuram Gupta, aged about 42 years, / 3. Prakash Gupta s/ o Late Nathuram Gupta, aged about-Q0 years. g4. Smt. Sita Devi Wd/o Le Nathuraln Gupta, aged about 7O years. A11 R/ o Ramgudipara, Raigarh, Tahsil 8L District Raigarh (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. l. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER(S) : As mentioned in the cause title. at W g% x HRGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -.Smg.le _Bench _ __. N Hon’ble Shn Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition {22H No.7464 of 2009 Pritam 8ingh Badhwa VerSUS Omprakash Gupta and others ORDER Post for 22-01 ~201 O M Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mlshra Judge t as V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.7464 of 2009 Petitioner Pritam Singh Badhwa versus Respondents Omprakash Gupta and others Present: Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Writ Potition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india ORDER (Passed on zi'qJanuary, 201 0) The petitioner/defendant,~in this petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of tndia, has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 482009 passed by the trial Court rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth ‘the Code’) fer dismissal of the suit for non—joinder of a necessary party. 2. it has been argued by teamed counsel for the petitioner that in a suit for eviction a ce—owner is a necessary party and without joining the cc—owner, the suit is not maintainable. According to him, since issue a—W: No.1 has been framed by the trial Court regarding the title ef the l 2.22;} lib plaintiffs, ali the co-owners of deceased Natthuram should have been / another iegai heir Ku. Shikha Gupta has rendered the suit as nct jeined in the suit, therefore, nen-joinder of deceased Natthuram’s a maintainable. Court 3. ln Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and others, AIR 1976 SC 2335, the Hon’bie Supreme Court has held thus: “2a. 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 be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change only when partition takes place. lt 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(t)(f). lt 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 tandlord of the defendants " 4. Relying on the above quoted judgment of the Hon’ble supreme in Sri Ram Pasrfcha vs. Jagannat‘h and others (SUpra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again in Smt. Kanta Gael vs. £.P.Pathak and others, AtR 1977 SC 1599 has held thus: “7. This Court, in Sri Ram Pasn'cha, (1976-4 SCC 184) : (AIR 1976 SC .2335) claritied that a co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of the property is: “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 be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property lt is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff who is admittedly‘the tandiord and co-owner of the premises, is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of S. 13(1)(f). it is not necessary to estabiish that the plaintiff is the only owner of ‘ I Harbans Sinrgh vs. germane and may be examined finally in the eviction suit. Ranbir Singh vs. Asham Lat quoted hereunder: “9. it may be pointed Gut that it is weil~settled law that the quesfion of title of Ehe propeny is not germane for decision of the eviction suit. in a case where a piaintiff institutee a suit fer evictien of hie tenant baeed en the relationship of the tandtord and tenant, the scope of the suit is very much Ltimited in which e question of title oannot be gone into thesause the suit of the plaintiff would be dismissed even if /**~7 l I l l at ”it :1 if , “l l: i l l ”gee the property for the purpose of S. 13(1)(f) as long as he is a co—owner of the property, being at the same time acknowledged landlord of the defendants." That case also was one for eviction under the rent control law of Bengal. The law having been thus put beyond doubt, the contention that the absence of the other co—owners on record disentitled the first tespondent from suing for eviction, fails. We are not called upon to consider the piquant situation that might arise 'if some of the co-ownere wanted the tenant to continue contrary to the relief claimed by the evicting co-owner.” 5. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a Full Bench decision in Smt. Margret G. Bhingardive, 1990 IVIPLJ ’312, after relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above, has again reiterated the law that a co-owner can maintain the 6. Even otherwise, in a suit for eviction based upon the landlord and tenant relationship, the question of title to the property is not incidentally but cannot be decided 7. Paragraph 9 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. (1995) 6 SCC 580, can profitably be suit for eviction. l— r4?— he succeeds in proving his title but fails to establish the privity 9f contract of tenancy. ln a suit for eviction based on such relationship the Court has only to decide whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not, though the question of title if disputed, may incidentally be gone into, in connection with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the litigating parties. tn LIC v. India Automobiles & C0,, (1990} 4 SCC 286 {SCC pp. 300-02, para 21) this Court had an occasion to deal with similar controversy. ln the said decision this Court observed that in a suit for eviction between the landlord and tenant, the Court will take only a prima facie decision on the collateral issue as to whether the applicant was landlord. lf the Ceurt finds existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it wiil have to pass a decree in accordance with law. it has been further observed that all that the Court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. in order to decide whether denial of landlord’s title by the tenant is bona fide the Court may have to go into tenant's contention on the issue but the Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court has to see whether the tenant’s denial of title at the landlord is bona tide in the circumstans of the case." ‘ admission stage. 8. in view of the above well-settted tegat position, thiS'Court does not find any error committed by the trial Court in‘rejecting the petitioner/defendant’s application under Ordert Rule 13 of the Code. Sdl- g. The instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the i/ m Prashant Kumar Mishral‘. Judge Gopal E i r t i r ce i