JUDGMENT
G.H. Guttal, J.
1. The petitioners-landlords, impugn the validity of the order dated 5th August, 1983 made by the learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 286 of 1979 reversing the order of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, in Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 1974 who had rejected the tenant’s application under section 17 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Bombay Rent Act”).
The respondent’s Advocate was absent on 21st February, 1990 and 22nd February, 1990. The hearing was adjourned to enable him to appear. He remained absent on 28th February, 1990 also, when the petition was heard.
2. Two questions arise for consideration:—
(i) Whether the occupation of the premises which are subject matter of a decree for eviction under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, by one of several joint landlords, is occupation by the landlord for the purpose of sub-section (i) of section 17 of the aforesaid Act.
(ii) Whether the transfer of possession of the premises by one joint landlord to another after recovering the possession of the premises in pursuance of the decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, constitutes “reletting” for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. The petitioners, the joint owners of the house No. 1508. Sadashiv Peth, Pune-2, instituted the Suit No. 770 of 1971 in which a decree for eviction from the two rooms was made against the respondent on 14th August, 1972. The decree directs that “Defendant shall hand over to the plaintiffs, possession …….”. This was consistent with the status of all the petitioners as joint owners. The Respondent-tenant-filed Civil Appeal No. 685 of 1972. The learned District Judge, Pune, confirmed the decree on the ground that the petitioners bonafide required the premises for their occupation. The decree of the District Court is dated 16th September, 1972. This decree too directs the defendant to hand over possession to the plaintiffs and not to any individual plaintiff. The respondent handed over possession of the premises on 15th January, 1974 which was received by the petitioner No. 2 who was the plaintiff No. 2. Meanwhile, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were married. Their wives did not carry on well with each other. They were conducting the business belonging to joint family in different premises. One of them was the suit premises. The petitioner No. 1 was given for use a part of the suit premises for residence and the remaining part for business. Likewise the petitioner No. 2 was given for use another premises of the family for residence and business of the joint family. In accordance with this arrangement the possession of the suit premises were given to the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 was given another premises of the family.
4. According to the respondent, the petitioners did not occupy the premises within one month from the date on which they received possession. Therefore, he made the application for recovery of possession under section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act. The case of the respondent to this petition in his application dated 26th November, 1974, made under section 17(1) is this:—
“After Respondent No. 2 received possession of the premises to 15th January, 1974, he did not start using the premises within one month thereof or did not start his business as contended by him in the said suit ……. Respondent No. 2 has sublet the premises to Defendant No. 1 ……..”.
It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner No. 2 has “relet” the premises to the petitioner No. 1. Nevertheless that is what he implies. According to him, the premises have been relet to the petitioner No. 1. The trial Court rejected the application but the Appellate Court allowed the application.
5. The petitioners herein who received possession in pursuance of the decree of eviction are admittedly the joint owners not only of the suit premises but of other properties. After recovering possession in pursuance of the decree, the premises which were subject matter of the decree were given to one of the several joint owners. The question is whether this internal transfer of possession of the suit premises from the petitioner No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1 constitutes re-latting within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioners are joint owners which means that they held the property in such a manner that each one of them has interest in every inch of the property whether it is the suit premises or the premises now allotted to the petitioner No. 2 by the internal arrangement. There is, thus, unity of title in respect of the property owned by the family. If, therefore, one of such joint owners transfers possession of the property in his occupation to another joint owner, there is no transfer of any interest, for, each one of them continues to own interest in every inch of the property under a common title. The individual plaintiffs, who are judgment creditors, did not have separate titles in the suit premises. Their title was one.
6. Since the respondent seeks to enforce the tenant’s right to recover possession under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act, it is necessary to analyse the content of such right. When analysed, sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act resolves itself into these elements :
(i) The decree in favour of the landlord must be under section 13(1)(g) of the Act ;
(ii) the landlord, judgment creditor, fails to occupy the premises to which the decree relates, within one month from the date of recovery of possession ;
OR
(iii) the premises are relet to any person other than the original tenant within one year from the date of recovery of possession in pursuance of the decree.
The petitioners recovered possession and petitioner No. 2 occupied the premises. Therefore, the event referred to at (ii) above did not occur. The respondent-tenant cannot therefore seek possession on the ground that the landlord failed to occupy the premises within one year from the date of recovery of possession. But the respondent has in his application urged that the premises were occupied by the petitioner No. 2 and not by all the petitioners. No doubt, all the petitioners as joint owners are the landlords. In the case of joint owners, possession or occupation by one is occupation on behalf of all owners. For this reason, I hold that the premises were occupied by the landlord within the time stipulated by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act.
7. The learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, has held that since the decree was made on the ground that the premises were required for the petitioner No. 2, the occupation by the petitioner No. 1 amounts to failure of the landlord to occupy the premises for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act. According to the learned Judge, the matter would be different if all the landlords occupied the premises. The approach of the learned Judge is erroneous. The decree is not in favour of the petitioner No. 2 alone. It is in favour of all the petitioners. Since the petitioners who are judgment creditors are joint owners, possession of one is possession of others. The occupation by any one of the petitioners is occupation by every other petitioner. Therefore, the premises were occupied by the landlord within one month from the date on which the possession was recovered. The learned II Extra Assistant Judge assumes that the petitioner No. 2 who received possession in execution of the decree is the landlord. All the petitioners jointly are the landlords because all of them own the property and all of them receive the rent from the suit property. In the case of a single owner, such owner is the landlord. Since the petitioners hold the property jointly, legally and beneficially, they are together the landlords of the suit property. The petitioner No. 2 did occupy the premises after securing possession in pursuance of the decree. The petitioner No. 2 received possession on behalf of all the petitioners/plaintiffs. Since they are joint owners, having unity of title and possession, the possession of one is possession by all. Therefore, the occupation of the premises by the petitioner No. 2 is occupation by all the landlords. There is no doubt that the premises were occupied by the landlord as required by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act.
8. The individual plaintiffs in the suit in which the decree of eviction was made, did not have separate titles in the suit premises. Their title was one. Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act confers, on the tenant, a right of reinstatement only where the landlord who recovers possession in pursuance of a decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, fails to occupy the premises within one month or relets the premises within one year of such date. The word “let” is of significance. The word “let” is used to signify creation of a lease by which the owner “lets” the premises. The word “let” is synonymous with “demise”. As a noun the word “demise” denotes a lease for a term of years. Although in its strict technical sense, it may suggest any transfer or conveyance, generally speaking the word “demise” is employed to denote a partial transfer by way of lease *The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, Reprint Edition, 1987. It is thus clear that the use of the word “relet” in sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act signifies creation of leasehold interest in another person. Now the petitioners being joint owners/lessors, they have unity of title. If one joint owner/lessor transfers the possession of the property to another joint owner/joint lessor, no interest is transferred or created, for, each one of them has antecedent interest in every part of the property. In my opinion, the transfer of possession of the premises by the petitioner No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1 involves no element of transfer and there is no reletting of any part of the property to which the decree relates.
9. For all these reasons, the impugned order of the learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, dated 5th August, 1983 is set aside. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with costs.