er 1 59 1 1 1 e1 2 084 am CivilRevision No 5743 of 2008 1541 INTHE HIGH COURT OF AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CivilRevision No 5743 of2008 1 Lateof decisionl 752010 SinghGandhi Petitioner m Ct Versus 0 espondent 40 SinghGill CivilRevision No 5744 of 2008 C5 2 SinghGandhi etitioner Versus P espondent SinghGiII I CivilRevision No 5897of 2008 3 08 CO Singhand others etitioner 1 Z Versus am espondent Rajinder SinghGill CORAM MR JUSTICE SDANAND Presentl Mr MSarinSenior Advocatewith Sarin Advocatefor the petitioner Ms Singh Advocate for the respondent Mr SDANAND J Thereis conceded of pleadingsin these the same partiesthough qua threecases which are of the same premIses In the Iightthereof it was differentportions Singh Gagan Preet 2012.12.27 22: 28 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 60 y CivliRevision No743 of 2008 m2m V ekRRR 4 agreedthat these have to necessarilyhave a common fate The is one of the coowners of the Heavers to be an NRl within the ambit of tenanted premises of 138 of the East PunjabUrban Rent Restriction 1 Act hereinafterreferred to as the Actl He appliedfor eviction of the from thetenanted premises on an averment that 0 C he requiresthe premises for own use and occupation notified of the filingof the petitionfor ejectment 0 On Section 133 of the Act the n each casel 4 r filed a plea under Section 18A of the Act for the Ieave of coutt to 1 contest the The plearaised was that the responder Iandlordbeing only one of the coowners and yet another coowner 08 havingalready a succession certificate on the death of his father it did give rise to a triableissue on account whereof Rent 7 contesthe proceedingsIt Z ControIler ought to have grantedIeave to Ll was also the that one of the coowners who may be an NRl cannot ask for of the tenant from the joint and premisesIt is also the pleathat an NRl has to restrict the relief sought to only one of the premtses In terms of the of Section 138 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 futther that an is also entitled to obtain eviction of thetenants from different of the premisesif those lanted A Singh Gagan Preet 2012.12.27 22: 28 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 61 743of2008 il RViSIOn 112eO st Rk 4 ofthe QuaobtainIng building form a cONnel it was oneof the bY able to fromnot beIng I apart thatth wouldnot lVerred 0f anothercoowner claIm weighthe a plea OUt from of an NRl negativethe of the Act ratsed Section the plea Rent The Iearned him to therebY of the beforeit on petition of the file on Counsel LearnedSenior ofthe ofthe arguedin favour thismatter triableissuesIn thatthere were decided order byarguing contestcouldbe forIeave to waythe plea andthere wasno the justIikethat of of the first In support relied behalf of the on Sentor 194 sngh VSe LalSinqh Kundan resisted by Thepleawas vristanVS Kewal by upon of the on Sinah2006121RCRe tothe pointIrl Mohan careful 1 have givenmY to be 0ehalfof th findthe pleaOll 1 asunder tereforar Thereasons thatthe beyond the paleof which It IS dispute ofthe In one of e coeoWnS Iandlord IS P 7 1 54 Singh Gagan Preet 2012.12.27 22: 28 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 e4 No5743of 2008 CivilRevislo J k9tk 11 the Onthe deathof his byhis father andhis brothers 5 1n5 1 to the 1 inheritance whichby cameover bY cettificate obtainedsuccessIon 1 a ofhis brothers for the 14l etc On that the 11 n suggest Illl nature of things behalf the very selfand on lZ hold the for cettificatewould fol successIon thesuccession i1 1 whosefavour 47 it The epersonIn entitledto 5 r of others exclusivetitle in n 02 cannotset up an 21 issued ceitificatehad been proper to theexclusioll of the toehalf Of the pointof VlW on 1172 k The Inthat case supra 1 n Krishans case byKewal 1 Iandlord IS under referenc t n 47 of the s a coeoWOe 1 an thetenant on the of 0 applied for C The er cooWneS thatthe NRlco0wner C them It was 1 availableto premises on 8 tenantfrom the i 10 fiIed a pleafor Ac The other co 1 ofSection13 ofthe a of themwhile Z the to on had basisof Om owners action on the appliedfor evicUon the NRl covowner couldbe of by 13Bof the Act of Section an NRl in the of cause by him only The filing theIaw Iaid validated by appearto havebeen Krishans case thisCourt in CoordinateBenchof a downby Singhs had been placedupon that case reliance supral In SenIor beenrelieduponby the supral whichhad whilerelyingupon case SingleJudge Learned Counselforthe SupremeCourt Kalawatlbaland others Dhannalal Vsn 4 1 1 r ennn6 4r e rm4 m Singh Gagan Preet 2012.12.27 22: 28 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 aa Il W 63 1 en of2008 e N05743 cjyuRevisiOtl 1rkR 1 L93 to file an of the the thefollowlng 16 notIced caseS Bench also action The irl COUTtIrl similar madebY the Apex 1 case suprale decisionsof thisCOUtt Ieastthree by at 1976RCR 4h It is well PasrichaVs nameIY I Sri Rarn 184Kanta CoultCases 1 1 197614 Supreme 197712 Rentl 832 Rentl 485 RCR n f 4 GoelVs BPathak v sunder PalSingh 1 814and 1 1 CourtCases Court Supreme 198911 Supreme Rentl331 1989 RCR and In Sirl canalone oneof the cowners A 44that tenantandit IS Cases ofthe 1 A right file a the r his own to 1 A 1 thetenant to 3 defence open that the other co 5 no the 4 05 ofthe suit on INhenthe r CO pies to thesuit not as owners matter of evicon j Z the subject forrnlng every 0m owned bY owners IS ofthe joint and every bit every part heis only a owners saidthat cannotbe andit withothers Iongas along so fraconal of the can alOO not been has the thetenant SUit for evictIonof do not maintaina if suchother coowners the other Il theyhaV object e 0 0 are theother Insofaras 6 w e Singh Gagan Preet 2012.12.27 22: 28 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t e 64 6 n 8 N0S743of2008 l vil ReviSlO k on the to evIctthe IreadYmade an didnot taste success tn theIr but theY to them disable the Thatfact does not 13 ofthe endeavour 1 Section availof the forlodgIng a hereinto to hIm IS Actlbecausethat fromthe of the for the clalnl actionqua of Insofaras the no disPUtwiththe 1 therecan IS in a summary prenises tenantonlyonce a canevict that an Howev that building the vacated form manner from to be gOt notapplyifthe would exactlya case The IS building Iarge remises 2 a partof OO 1 Thereis no Theplea 1 1 ofthat category ofsame A pait ree caSeSare a T J in these shall 1 3 on of the 1 L toeenabl 1havenot offoregoing count I l Inthe Iight valid orderon any to faultthe vvhereInthe to andsimplecase 1 Is a pure whowantedto availOf The NRland who is an theonly one IS 138ofthe Act ln Section 6 eficial andit is so the to be petitIolldeserves of thIS The Itl If any to ordered madewith theadvantage referenceIS of mine Is VlW r Y49 4ae Singh Gagan Preet 2012.12.27 22: 28 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 3 e 1 No743 of 2008 ivil R4sion tkk 1 J r0 1 1 RR IRentl436 2006 111 4C V Gurdial 715 715 6k Singh 2007121 11 Harbhalan and others r 01 Kuman ukesh KU Vsv A n44 and 11 692 1 RR ICivill twomonthS 4 shallhave in eachcase lt 3 The 3 the fromtodayto therecordof each 1 be placed on 1 A COPY of this Il file 1 Yl l 1 1 Judge 1 072010 Pka 1 1 1 1 l 4 1 1 n 1 1 1 ttQ 1 1 1 1 6114 1 1i l 1 r 1 e eC I A e d Singh Gagan Preet 2012.12.27 22: 28 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document