43 4 1 1 P 1 1 bk 95 CivilRevision NoS743 of 2008 le RRk k COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT INTHE HIGH CHANDIGARH Civil No 5743 of 2008 1 72010 Dateof decision SinghGandhi etitioner 1C Versus 0 espondent 1O Rajinder SinghGill M No744 of 2008 Civil Revistoll C5 2e SinghGandhi Petitioner Z Versus 0 espondent SinghGill CivilRevision No 5897 of 2008 3e 08 CO Singhand others Petitioner w Z Versus Om espondent SinghGill CORAMHONBLE MR JUSTICE SDANAND MrMSarin Senior Advocate with Presentl Sarin Advocate for the petitioner Ms Mr Gurinder Singh for the respondent DANAND J of Pleadi9Sin these Thereis conceded whichare between the same paitiesthoughqua three cases of the same premises In the Iightthereof it was differentportions Uma 2013.01.19 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 Y Civil Revision No743 of 2008 2 lrl 1 l M1r 5 1 agreedthat these have to necessarilyhave a common fate The is one of the coowners of the premises He avers to be an NRl within the ambit of of 133 of the East PunjabUrban Rent Restriction 1 Act hereinafterreferred to as the Act He appliedfor eviction of the from thetenanted premises on an averment that 0 C he requiresthe premises forown use and occupation notified of the filing of the petitionfor ejectment C5 On 138 of the Act the n each casel under 1 Z filed a pleaunder Section 18mAof the Act for the Ieave of court to m contestthe proceedingsThe plearaised was that the respondent r Iandlordbeing only one ofthe conowners and yet another coowner a5 havingalready a succession certiOcateon the death of his 1 father it did give rise to a triableissue on account whereof Rent Ieave to contest the proceedingsIt Controlleroughtto have Ll was also the that one of the coowners who may be an NRl j cannot ask for ejectmentof the tenant from the joint and premises It is also the pleathat an NRI has to restrict the relief sought to only one of the premises Ill terms of the of Section 13B of the Act The pleafor Ieave tocontest was resisted on behalf of the on an averment that there was no triable issue as a coowner is entitledto applyfor eviction of the tenant and ther that an NRandlord is also entitled tO Obtain ViCtiO Of the tenants from different of the premisesif those tenanted a4 1 e9mm1 3 Uma 2013.01.19 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45 95 3ivil Revlsico 0S743 of 2008 J ll kitR 1 1 k premisesl form a part of an integratedbuilding Qua obtainingof the 1 18 1 successton certificate by one of the nonpartycomowners it was averred that the succession certificate apart from not beingable to I 14 i out weigh the proprietaryclaim of another cowowner would not negative the entitlement of an NRl coowner from raisinga plea L r under Section 133 of the Act The Iearned Rent Controller negativedthe plea raised 1 before it on behalf of the petitionertenanttherebyimpellinghim to presentrevision petition 5 11 4 9n 4 Learned Senior Counsel appearingon behalf of the 1 r 7m arguedin favour of the invalidation of the impugned 0 1 t order by arguingthat there were indeed triable issues in this matter 08 and there was no way the pleafor Ieave to contest could be decided e 9 C e justiike that 11 a7 Z In support of the first indicated item of grievancethe r Iearned Senior Counsel appearingon behalf of the petitionerrelied J uponKundan Sinqh Vs Lal Sinqh 2005111 RR 194 The plea was resisted by the Iearned counsel appearIng on behalf of the respondentby relyingupon Kewal Krishan Vs Mohan Sinqh 2006 121RR 1Civill442 have given my careful consideration to the point In controversy find the plea on behalf of the petitioner4enantto be untenableThe reasons therefor are as undeo It is beyondthe pale of controversythat the respondent Iandlord is one of the coowners of the premisesin disputewhich 1 re II WI e 1j Uma 2013.01.19 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 46 46 Civil Relisilr a05743 of 2008 w4 1 01 S 1 1 S1r4kk v 1 S 1 owned by his father On the death of his father the property 1 were 0Ar came over byinheritance to the and his brothers 1 etc One of his brothers obtained a succession certificate which by 11 11 the very nature of things would suggest that the applicantfor the succession certificate would hold the propertyfor self and on behalf J of others entitled to itFhe person in whose favour the successiOll 1 certificate had been issued cannot set up an exclusive title in respectof the propertyto the exclusion of the other coownerslheirs nj The pointof Vlew projectedon behalf of the r landlord is suppoitedby Kewal Krishans case 4supral In that case r an NRHandlord was a coowner of the propertyunder reference i1 The other coowners applied for ejectmentof the tenant on the I l Il m groundsavailable to ther lt was thereafter that the NRl comowner t1 1 dd filed a pleafor ejectmentof the tenant from the tenanted premiseson e e1 m the authorityof provisionsof Section 1 3 of the ActThe other m 1 1 1L owners had soughtejectment on the groundsavailable to then whtle 1 j the NRl coowner applied for eviction action on the basis of provIstons of Section 133 of the Act which could be availed of by him only The filing of cause by an NRl in the aforesaid circumstances would appear to have been validated by the Iaw Iald J down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kewal Krishans case 1 41 supral In that case reliance had been placedupon Kundan Singhs case 6supralwhich had been relied upon by the Iearned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Learned SingleJudge vvhile relyingupon Dhannalal V Kalawatibai and others 2002161SupremeCourt r 1 L e 9L74 nIV 5555 15I 2 9 0 V14 Iv Uma 2013.01.19 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 47 97 Civil Revlsion No5743 of 2008 Sm 1 j 4rMk Iw 1 Cases 16 upheldthe entitlement of the NRHandlord to file an 1 ejectmentactionThe Bench also noticed the following I l observations made by the Apex Court in similar circumstances in 11 1 1 Dhannalars case supralle 1 It is weil settled by at Ieast three decisions of this CouM 1 1 namely Sri Ram Pasricha Vs Jagannath 1976 RCR 7 Rentl 832 197614 SupremeCourt Cases 18 Kanta t i Goel Vs BPPathak 197911RCR 3entl 485 37712 1 1 SupremeCourt Cases 814 and Pal Singh l Sunder 1 Singh 1989 21RCR Rentl3311 198911 SupremeCourt d4 1 Io Cases 444that one of the coowners can alone and in a r 1 r 0 7V his own rightfile a suit for ejectmentof the tenant and it IS 1 1 a5 no defence open to the tenant to question the 1 1 Cll IC 01the suit on the groundthat the other CO m Z owners were notjoinedas partiesto the suit When the 1 m property forming the subject matter of eviction J proceedingsis owned by several owners every c0owner owners every part and every bit of the joint propeny alongwith others and it cannot be said that he is only a partowner or a fractionalowner of the propertyso Iongas the propertyhas not been partitioned He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant withoul joining the other coowners if such other c0mowners do not object Il Insofar as the other coowners are concerned theyhave e9 4 e 2 1 1 Uma 2013.01.19 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 48 98 ivil Revision No743 of 2008 m6 1 11 Y k9tR Pe 4j 4 4 made an endeavour to evict the on the 4 1 available to them but they did not taste success in the7r j l 1 0 endeavour That fact does not d7sable the herein to avail of the beneficial provisions Section 13 3 ofthe 9 Actlbecause that particularprovisionis available to him for Iodginga claim for the ejectmentof the from the premises r aforementioned Insofaras the Iaunching01ejectmentaction qua different e 1 pmises IS concerned there can be no disputewith the proposition that an NRlllandlord can evict a tenant only once In a summary rnanner from the tenanted building However that restricted would not appiy tf the premisesto be got vacated form 1 a partof one IntegratedIargebuilding The presentis exactlya case 1 1 r aa of that categoryThereis no controversythat the tenanted premlses aP involved in these three cases are a part of same premises The plea Il 3 1 raised on behalf of the shall stanElegatived 1 71 accordingly In the Iightof foregoingdiscussion I have not been able Ii to persuademyself10 fault the impugnedorder on any valid count The present is a pure and simple case wherein the respondent Iandlord is the only one who is an NRl and who wanted to avail of 1 r the beneficial provisionscontained in Section 133 of the Act 1 1 The petitiondeserves to be negativedand it IS SO ordered accordingly If any judicialpronouncementin supportof this Vlew of rnine is required reference is made with the advantageto k01 r IM ro 1 81 te e4 Uma 2013.01.19 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 g 19 71 1 1iviiRevion NoS743 of 2008 w7 j1 1 11 1 1 01 17 ItRt 1 V Hrbhaian SinqhVs Gurdial Sinqh 2006 111R Rentl 436 and MukeshKumar Vs osh Kumari and others 2007 121 31 1 RCRCivill 692 277 7 In The in each case shall have two months 11 1 from today to vacate the premisesunder their individualtenancy A copy of this order be placed on the record of each 1 connected file 1 0 Il 1 DAnandl f 072010 V Pka Judge 1 1e 1 1 1 a r 1 r 1 5 5 1 2 7 r 1 1 11 46 2 1 Uma 2013.01.19 14: 24 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document