Judgment:
ORDER
Neeladri Rao, J.
1. The tenant who is the respondent in R.C. 2/76 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Nellore) is the revision petitioner. The eviction was prayed for on four grounds including the ground for bona-fide requirement. The Rent-Controller ordered eviction on the grounds of bonafide requirement and that the tenant secured alternative accommodation as contemplated under Section 10(2) (v) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Control Act'). RCA 10/80 filed by the tenant was allowed. Then the landlord preferred CRP 151/83. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the appellate court for considering afresh in regard to the following two points viz., (i) Whether the respondent landlord has got bona fide requirement for personal occupation of the petition,-schedule premises and (ii) whether the appellant-tenant secured alternative accommodation. After remand the learned Subordinate Judge held the two points in favour of the landlord. Then the tenant preferred this revision petition. As per order dt. 23rd March, 90. I held the second point i.e., whether the appellant-tenant secured alternative accommodation against the landlord. By the same order a finding was called for from the appellate court in regard to Point No. 1 i.e. about bona fide requirement. Latter submitted a finding dated 21st August, 1990. It is in favour of the landlord. The same is assailed by the tenant-revision petitioner.
2. When it was pleaded for the landlord that except the schedule premises which was let out to the respondent-tenant, he had no other house in Nellore it was stated for the tenant-revision petitioner that the landlord is having number of houses at Nellore. The said question of fact was adverted to in detail by the appellate court in its finding. The material on record discloses that the father of the landlord who died in 1970 was having some houses in Nellore and the landlord and his brother and his mother succeeded to the same. But there is no evidence of partition as amongst the landlord, his brother and their mother. Thus the evidence discloses that the landlord is a sharer along with his brother and his mother, in the properties left by his father and thus those properties include some residential houses in Nellore. But no material is placed before the court to show that the landlord is exclusively owner of any residential house, other than the schedule premises of which he is the exclusive owner.
3. The decision in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, : [1977]1SCR395 is referred to by Sri P. Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for tenant-revision petitioner. The question that was considered in the above judgment is 'whether a landlord who is a co-owner of the premises with others is the owner within the meaning of Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956'. Therein one of the co-owners filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of his requirement. Then it was urged for the tenant that the suit itself is not maintainable as other co-owners were not impleaded and in any case eviction cannot be ordered on the requirement of only one of the co-owners, and the eviction can be prayed only in case of requirement of all the co-owners. The plea in regard to the non-joinder of other co-owners was rejected as it was not raised at the earliest opportunity. Therein it was held that '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 he is co-owner of the property being at the same time acknowledged landlord of the defendants.' It was also held therein that 'a co-owner is as much owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is.'
4. Section 10 (3) (a) (i), (a) Rent Control Act which is relevant runs as under :-
'if the landlord is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned and he requires it for his own occupation;'
It does indicate that the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant (i) if he is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city and (ii) if he requires it for his own occupation. The question arises as to whether the word 'owned' has to be construed as exclusive owner or even the joint owner comes within the ambit of the said expression. The decision of the Supreme Court referred to for the tenant-petitioner is relied on to contend that even the joint owner is equally entitled to each and every portion of the premises and hence the joint owner in occupation of the joint property, is not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant. But in that case it was urged that the joint owner on the basis of his own requirement cannot seek eviction and it is only the requirement of all the joint owners that gives cause of action for eviction of the tenant from the joint property. But the same was repelled by the Supreme Court. In that context it was observed that even the joint owner is entitled to each and every portion of the property.
5. But in this case a landlord can seek eviction of the tenant if he is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city. In regard to joint properties they may be grouped into three classes viz., (i) where only one of the joint owners is in occupation of the same, (ii) where all the joint owners or two or more of them are in occupation of the same and (iii) where it is in occupation of a third party. When the landlord is in occupation along with others who are also having a right to reside just as in the case of joint owners, it cannot be a case of exclusive occupation of the landlord in the joint house. In view of the object and purpose of Section 10(3), Rent Control Act, it has to be held that a landlord is not entitled to claim eviction of the tenant from a residential building, if he is in exclusive occupation of his own house in the city, town or village. But if two or more joint owners reside in the joint house then it cannot be a case of the exclusive occupation of the landlord. Hence in a case of residential house owned jointly by landlord along with other or others, and if that landlord along with one or more joint owners is in occupation of the said house, it cannot be held as exclusive occupation of the landlord of his joint house, for in such a case either that landlord or any other joint owner cannot request the other joint owner to vacate and if such joint owner wants to have exclusive enjoyment of the premises he can leave that house or that he has to obtain the assent of the other joint owners or that he had to claim partition and he can get that house exclusively if it is allotted to him. The object and purpose of Section 10 (3) (a) (i) is that the landlord who is already occupying his own house cannot seek eviction of the tenant from his other house for he is in exclusive occupation of his own house. No one can request him to vacate it. But when the landlord who is a joint owner cannot have the exclusive enjoyment of the joint house especially when he was living with other joint owner or joint owners, the landlord cannot be asked to suffer by living with joint owners when he is having his own house which exclusively belongs to him and which is in occupation of the tenant and if he gets possession of the same, he can occupy it exclusively for himself. Hence I feel that on proper construction of Section 10 (3) (a), Tenancy Act, there is an embargo on the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant from the residential building if he is in exclusive occupation of his own building in the city, town or village or if he lives with others in his own building, that others have no right to reside in the said building.
6. In this case, the respondent is living with his mother who is the other joint owner in their joint house. So for disposal of this revision petition it is not necessary to consider as to whether it can be stated that a joint owner who is in exclusive possession of the joint house is debarred from getting tenanted premises vacated if it is a residential building.
7. In the view, which I had taken there is no need to determine as to whether the word 'own' in Section 10 (3) (a) (i) (a), Rent Control Act includes joint ownership.
8. So there is no bar for the respondent-landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises-a residential building though he is residing in the joint house belonging to him and his mother, for his mother, the other sharer, is also residing in the said house. No other point was argued for the revision petitioner. Hence the finding of the appellate court on Point No. 1 is affirmed. So the revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.
9. Three month's time is granted for vacating the premises on undertaking to vacate.
10. The revision-petitioner-tenant had to give an undertaking to vacate the premises before the Prl. District Munsif, Nellore (Rent Controller) by 20-2-1991 and he shall continue to pay the rent till he vacate the premises as per the undertaking.
11. Heard both the Counsel. If the revision petitioner-tenant fails to give the undertaking as referred to by 20-2-1991, the landlord-respondent is free to execute the decree.