ORDER
1. These 4 revision petitions arise under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The petitioners are the tenants who are unsuccessful in both the Tribunals below and suffered orders of eviction from non-residential premises owned by the three respondents/landlords. The respondents had instituted the proceedings under the above Act for the eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground of personal requirement and after comprehensive enquiry into the said aspect, the Rent Controller held that though for the 1st respondent, personal requirement was not proved beyond doubt, as proof varied with pleadings, the said Tribunal had emphatically found that the personal requirement of respondents 2 and 3 for setting up their business is bona fide. So far as the factum of bona fides as regards the requirement for personal occupation by the respondents 2 and 3 is concerned, there is concurrent finding of fact and the same is not open in revision petitions for challenge on the appreciation of evidence and rightly, Mr. Mallikarjuna
Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not canvass the findings of fact and he had concentrated on the legal point involved. But, before recording the legal point which is involved for adjudication, which of course is very important point of law for consideration, statement of some undisputed facts is necessary.
2. The respondents had purchased the premises jointly under a sale-deed and had thus, become co-owners of the non-residential premises under the occupation qf the petitioners. The respondents are Muslims and though construction of Hindu joint family is not applicable to them, yet they are the co-owners and that too undivided. Now, in view of the peculiar situation of non-suiting the 1st respondent rejecting his plea of personal requirement and allowing the plea of respondents 2 and 3 for occupation of the premises for the purpose of carrying on their business, the important question which falls for consideration is as to whether “in the absence of any partition among co-owners/ landlords and in view of findings that one of the co-owners does not require the premises for personal occupation and that the other co-owners do require the premises for their personal occupation, can the tenants be evicted?” Some decisions have been cited in this regard and out of the same, the decisions in Damodaram Chetti v. Rukmaniamma, (1967) 11 Andh WR 200 and Mohd. A. Razak v. Saleemunnisa, , deal with the maintainability of eviction petition filed by one co-owner against the tenants. In Damodarara’s case, it was held that there is ho objection under law to file an eviction petition by one of the co-owners, but the other co-owners have to be made respondents/ defendants. This decision has got no direct bearing on the point involved in the instant case.
3. In Mohd. A. Razak v. Saleemunnisa, , it was held that one co-owner can maintain ah eviction petition against the tenant even without making other co-owners as respondents/defendants, if he was receiving rents on behalf of the other co-owners and particularly, when there is
no objection raised by other co-owners, thus making a distinction of the decision in Damodaram’s case. This decision also has no direct bearing on the point involved in the instant case for adjudication, as the maintainability is not questioned in the instant case, but only the acceptance of plea for eviction of all the tenants in spite of two findings, one against one of the co-owners and the another in favour of the other two co-owners was given. Concisely speaking, what Mr. Mallik-arjuna Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends is that the petitioners are in separate possession of four shops which are non-residential while there are 3 landlords and out of whom only two landlords are having a finding of personal requirement in their favour and if that be so, they cannot pick and choose the petitioners for eviction and they cannot have eviction from all the four shops as they are not absolute owners of four shops, but have got only 1/3rd share.
4. Mr. Somakonda Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that a co-owner has got right in each and every part of the four shops involved in the instant case and as there is no partition, one co-owner’s requirement is sufficient for getting eviction order even though the other co-owners fail to prove their personal requirement. There are also other decisions which are cited, namely, the decisions in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagan-nath, , Kanta Goel v. B. P. Pathak, , Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh, as also Jayaseetan v. Chandrasekar, (1986) II MLJ 136. The decision in Jayaseelan’s case is not so much relevant for solving the ticklish problem involved in the instant case. Then, we come to the 3 Supreme Court decisions referred to supra and out of the same, the decision in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, is the earliest and has got direct bearing on the point involved in the instant case. The Supreme Court formulated the point “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 other
co-sharers. The principal question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff being a co-owner landlord can be said to reasonably require the premises for his own occupation within the expression “if he is the owner”. The Supreme Court having dealt with the said aspect has held “jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be 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/hot possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord and co-owner of the premises is not owner of the premises within the meaning of S. 13(1)(f). It is not necessary to establish that the plaifttiff 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”.
5. Having held as above, the Supreme
Court had authoritatively ruled “we are. of opinion that a co-owner is as much as owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is”. This view of the Supreme Court was approved in later judgments of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, , as also in Pali Singh v. Sunder Singh, . To the same effect is the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in M. S. Malpaniv. A. D. Asaws, 1986 (2) ANT 492 DB. At paragraph 29, the said Division Bench held :
“In case of a non-residential building owned by a Hindu jomt family, the requirement of a member of the joint family would be the requirement of the landlord and the business being carried on or proposed to be carried on by a member of such family would satisfy the requirement of the clause. Similarly, where one or more of the several co-owners propose to commence a business or require the premises for the purpose of a business which they are carrying on, the requirement of the clause would be satisfied.”
6. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to above,
there cannot be absolutely any doubt as regards the right of one of the co-owners to maintain the eviction petition against the tenant/s, even though the other co-owners do not join the petitioner. The situation is not different merely because co-owners have not joined the petitioner. In the instant case, one co-owner has failed to prove his personal requirement while two other co-owners have succeeded in proving the same. Mr. Mallikarjuna Sastry, sought to make a distinction of the above judgments of the Supreme Court and also the Division Bench, on the ground that there one of the co-owners had instituted proceedings for eviction of tenant, but similar situation did not arise and that inasmuch as the 1st respondent’s plea of personal requirement was negatived, the entire case should fail. I cannot accede to this submission. Merely because respondents 1 to 3 who are the co-owners have filed the eviction petition and the finding of personal requirement is held against the 1st respondent, the plea of respondents 2 and 3 who are the other co-owners cannot be nullified. It cannot be said that the respondents 2 and 3 are in the worst position than the cases referred to above, merely because the 1st respondent has suffered an adverse finding as the result is that even though one co-owner is not entitled for personal occupation, since two other co-owners are entitled for the same and as the partition is not at all affected inter se respondents 1 to 3, the respondents 2 and 3 are the owners of each and every part of four shops occupied by the petitioners and as such they are entitled to get an order of eviction of all the four shops involved in the instant case and occupied by the petitioners herein and the petitioners are liable to vacate the same. A period of three months is given to the petitioners for vacating the premises.
7. The civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.
8. Petition dismissed.