JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The plaintiff’s suit for issue of permanent injunction having been dismissed by the lower appellate Court, they have come up in this second appeal The factual position as admitted by the parties may be briefly noticed.
2. Bimla Rani was the owner of the property in dispute which consists of a residential house. On December 19, 1957, a rent note was executed whereby Jagan Nath was inducted as a tenant Jagan Nath died in 1976. He left behind widow Pushpa Devi, three sons viz. Subhash Chander, Rajinder Kumar and Devinder Sharma. He also left behind two daughters by the names of Veena Sharma and Rani Sharma
3. It appears that in or about the year 1980, Bimla Rani sold the property to Pritam Kaur etc., the present respondents. On having bought the property the respondents filed an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the widow Pushpa Devi. Subhash Chander and Rajinder Kumar sons of Jagan Nath and Balwinder Kumar minor son of Jagan Nath through Pushpa Devi, his mother. This petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal filed by Pushpa Devi etc having been dismissed, they filed Civil Revision No. 3445 of 1986 in this’ Court. It was dismissed by order dated November 20, 1986.
4. It deserves notice here that the prayer for ejectment was allowed on the finding that they needed the premises for personal use. The plea of personal necessity was found to be bonafide and established.
5. Apprehending that they may be ejected from the premises in dispute, in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, two daughters viz. Veena Sharma and Rani Sharma and the son Devinder Sharma filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant-respondents be restrained from taking the possession of the house. It was claimed that they were not parties to the proceedings before the Rent Controller and, therefore, they were not bound by the order. This suit appears to have been instituted in the year 1985. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: –
1. Whether the plaintiffs are tenants in possession of the suit property ? OPP.
2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable as alleged ? OPD.
3 Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP.
4-A. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file this Civil suit ? OPD.
5. Relief.
6. The suit was partly decreed The trial Court held that Veena Sharma was married in the year 1976 and was not staying in the premises at all. The suit was decreed in favour of present appellants. The judgment was challenged before the lower appellate Court who found that the plaintiff held a joint tenancy with their mother and brothers and as such, they were also bound by the order passed by the Rent Controller. As a result, the appeal was allowed.
7. I have heard Mr. C. B. Goel, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. S. Bakshi, the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. Mr. Goel contends that the appellants are not bound by the order passed by the Rent Controller as they were not parties to these proceedings and that they are not liable to be ejected in pursuance to the order of the Court Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a decision of this Court in Paro Devi and Ors. v. Sukh Devi, 1986 (1) R. C. J. 316.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Bakshi has contended that the tenancy was joint and that the order of ejectment having been passed against Pushpa Devi and Subhash Chander etc. the appellants are bound by it He has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul, A. I. R. 1989 S. C 1470.
10. It is the admitted position that the appellants were staying with their mother Pushpa Devi and Subhash Chander, their brother. It is neither pleaded nor proved that the appellants were paying any rent separately to the landlord Nothing has been brought on record to show that they were in occupation of separate portions of the house or that they had separate tenancy rights. In fact, no plea in that behalf has been raised in the plaint. Even at the stage of evidence, nothing of this sort was suggested. In such a situation, it is safe to assume that the tenancy was joint. Once it is found that the tenancy is joint and that all the heirs of Jagan Nath had community of interest in possession, it would follow that the initiation of proceedings before, the Rent Controller against one would bind alt the rest.
11. In a case, where there is a conflict among heirs or it is specifically claimed that separate tenancy rights exists, the position may be different However, when the position is as in the present case where all the members of a joint family are living together, it would , be an apparent abuse of the process of law if it is held that an order of ejectment passed against some would not bind the others.
12. The tenancy rights of Jagan Nath had devolved on his heirs. There was no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor. The appellants, therefore, succeeded as a joint tenants with their mother and brothers. Consequently, the order of ejectment against some would bind even the appellants.
13. As for the decision of this Court in Paro Devi’s case (supra), it may be mentioned that the observations had been made by the Court in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 at an inter locutory stage. It was specifically observed that the observations would not bind even the trial Court. Consequently, it is safe to assume that the Hon’ble Judge did not propose to lay down a binding precedent. In any event, the subsequent decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court clearly supports the claim of the defendant-respondents.
14. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.