RSA No.1766 of 1981 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1766 of 1981 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2011 Ishwar Dass son of L. Than Singh, Aggarwal, Jain, resident of 48/4, Jain Street, Panipat through his LRs. ... Appellant Versus Shri Kailash Chand son of Sita Ram, Panwari, Halwai Hatha, Panipat, District Karnala. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:None for the parties. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation on either side. The case has been identified by the Administrative section of this Court as one among the oldest cases and assigned to this Court specifically for expeditious disposal. I hasten to, therefore, dispose of the case on merits on the basis of records available before me, particularly, in view of the fact that on none of the past dates of hearing namely 18.07.2007, 19.02.2008, 24.04.2008, 28.01.011, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. On 11.03.2011, the appellant was represented but he was still not ready and he had asked for time to yet another date for arguments. I find no justification for the absence of the appellant. 2. The plaintiff case was that the property, which was a shop had been rented out to one Ganpat and after his death, RSA No.1766 of 1981 (O&M) [2] the defendant continued in possession of the property without any right. The defendant was not entitled to continue in possession of the property and the possession being unlawful, he was liable to be ejected. The defendant contended that the plaintiff himself was not the exclusive owner and yet another person Ramesh Chand had been co-owner in respect of the property and he had granted a lease in his favour and he was also paying rent to the said Ramesh Chand. The defendant also contended that he did not have any relationship with the plaintiff. 3. It is borne out from the records that the plaintiff himself is not the exclusive owner of the property. If he was suing for ejectment, he could succeed against his tenant or his successor only if he shows that the defendant's possession was as such a tenant. If the plaintiff was filing a suit saying that the defendant was in unlawful possession and the defendant showed by evidence that his possession was relatable to a tenancy by one of the co-owners, then the plaintiff could not have succeeded without showing that the other co-owner had no authority to grant a lease and the defendant was in some way barred from denying his status of tenancy viz-a-viz the plaintiff. 4. The lower Appellate Court has held on evidence, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court that the plaintiff had himself filed documents to show that there had been a demand against him for an accounting for the profits earned by him by managing the properties held in co-ownership. The plaintiff was trying to state in evidence that the defendant had been associated in some way with previous tenant Kailash Chand that was, however, not established. The lower Appellate Court has also considered the fact that the defendant actually examined one Ramesh Chand as the co-owner who spoke about RSA No.1766 of 1981 (O&M) [3] the fact that he had created tenancy in favour of the defendant. The status of Ramesh Chand as a co-owner was again not in dispute. It becomes, therefore, evident that the plaintiff could not have filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent without showing that yet another co-owner was not competent to execute the tenancy in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff must have at least impleaded Ramesh Chand as a party under whom the defendant was claiming. Even that was not done. The Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit under such circumstances. I find no reason to modify the judgments. The judgments are confirmed and the second appeal is dismissed. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE