Case: Sriram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and Others

Briefly the facts are as follows:--The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) is admittedly the landlord of one late Bhagat Ram Pasricha predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant and respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendants). The tenancy was in respect of a part of the premises No. 221/1, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta, being the entire second floor of the building. The tenancy commenced some time in 1946 and Bhagat Ram Pasricha promised to vacate the said premises within March 31, 1947 and positively after March 31, 1948. Bhagat Ram Pasricha, however, did not vacate and died on February 18, 1960, leaving behind the defendants as his heirs. The plaintiff is only a co-sharer owner of the suit premises being one of the heirs of his father late Motilal Sen who, originally owned the property.The plaintiff instituted a .suit for eviction of the defendants in December 1962 on the twin pleas of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement of the premises for his own occupation as well as for the occupation of the members of the joint family consisting of his mother and his married brother. The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds. On the question of reasonable requirement the trial court held that the plaintiff being only a co-sharer owner cannot be said to be the owner within the meaning of section 13(1)(1) of the Act. The trial court, however, held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the case of reasonable requirement of the members of the family "for whose benefit the premises were held by him" with in the meaning of the second part of section 13(1) (f).On appeal by the defendants the lower appellate court did not accept the plea of default but affirmed the finding of reasonable requirement although the learned Judge was not specific as to which the two material parts of section 13(1)(f) would govern the case.In the second appeal by the defendants before the learned single Judge of the High Court the question of factual existence of reasonable requirement was not disputed. It was, however, contended before the learned single Judge that even though the actual reasonable requirement of the premises was established the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction being only a co-sharer and as such not "the owner" of the premises within the meaning of section 13(1) (f). It was submitted that a co-owner was only a part-owner and was not entitled to an order of eviction under section 13(1)(f) of the Act. The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suitwill not be sufficient if the reasonable requirement is of all members, of the family of the co-owners but such co- owners must again be the landlords who only are made entitled to a decree for recovery of the possession under section 13 (1) (f).In the letters patent appeal before the Division Bench the High Court did not agree with the single judge and set aside the decision and decreed the suit for eviction. The Division Bench held:In our opinion a co-owner is as much an absolute owner as a sole owner is with reference to the interest held by him".

Reasoning:
There are two reasons for our not being able to accept the above submission. Firstly, the plea pertains to the domain of the frame of the suit as if the suit is bad for non-joinder of other plaintiffs. Such a plea should have been raised, for what it is worth, at the earliest opportunity. It was not done. Secondly, the relation between the parties being that of landlord and tenant, only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit fore is no dispute that the plaintiff is the landlord. It is, however, found that he is one of the co-owners of the premises the other co-sharers being his mother and married brother, who reside in the Same premises along with him. The premises m suit, namely, the second floor of the building in occupation of the tenant is required by the plaintiff for occupation of the members of the joint family and for their benefit. A major port ion of the ground floor of the building accommodates the joint family business and the first floor is found by the court to be inadequate to the requirements of the large family of eighteen members including the widowed mother.That the particular requirement is reasonable is no longer in controversy. The only question is whether a decree can still be passed in favour of the plaintiff since he is not the absolute and full owner of the premises, sharing, as he does, the interest in the premises along with otherit is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not it s owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot he said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will, change only when partition takes place. It 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(1)(f). It 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 landlord of the defendants.Mr. Tarkunde also submitted that since the Calcutta High Court has held in Yogamaya Pakhira v. Santi Subha Bose (I.L.R. (1968) 2 Cal. 70.) that a permanent lessee is not an owner within the meaning of section 13 (1)(f) a co-owner would not be in a better position. We are of opinion that a co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is. We, however, express no opinion about the case of a permanent lessee as this point does not arise in this appeal.