IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5306 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.10.2009 Deepak Suri and another .....Petitioners versus Sudesh Kumari and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioners' application/objections have been dismissed. The first respondent (Sudesh Kumari) filed an eviction petition against Inderjit Singh-tenant {since deceased and represented by his legal heirs-respondent Nos.9(a), 9(b) and 9(c)} for vacation of Booth No.4, Sector-9-D, Chandigarh. The said Booth was admittedly owned by Amar Nath Suri who died in the year 1997 leaving behind two sons and eight daughters. The first respondent is one of those daughters. The petitioners are grand-sons of late Amar Nath Suri. The petitioners' father Sh.Kewal Krishan Suri has unfortunately passed away. The petitioners C.R. No.5306 of 2009 (O&M) 2 claim themselves to be co-owners in the subject Booth. Respondent No.1, on the other hand, claims ownership to the exclusion of other legal heirs of deceased Amar Nath Suri. Suffice it to say that so long as the property is jointly owned, the renting out of such property and/or the eviction proceedings initiated against the tenant by one co-owner are for and on behalf of all the co- owners. Unless respondent No.1 proves her exclusive title to the exclusion of others, the petitioners interest cannot be over-looked. However, this issue shall be gone into by the Civil Court in partition proceedings pending between the parties. Till such time, the Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court, Chandigarh appears to be right in observing that the possession of the Booth in dispute can be handed over to respondent No.1, as the eviction proceedings were instituted at her instance. As such, the impugned order to that extent is upheld. However, it is imperative upon the first respondent not to create any third party rights or let out the Booth till the partition proceedings are concluded. With a view to resolve the controversy at the earliest, the Civil Court, Chandgiarh, is directed to expedite the partition proceedings and dispose of the same at the earliest possible and preferably within one year from today. Dispose of. Dasti. 21-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE