N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This revision petition is against the order of Rent Controller dated 29-5-1989 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') was dismissed.
2. Briefly put, the petitioner filed ejectment application under Section 13-A of the Act against the respondent on the ground that he is the owner/landlord of the disputed premises ; that he has retired from the railway department on 18-3-1988 and requires the premises in dispute for his own occupation. The petitioner further stated that the house bearing No. 185--subjecc matter of the eviction application-was earlier owned by his father Sh. Piyare Lal. On his death, lie, his brother Bal Krishan and his sister Prem have inherited the property. It was further stated that presently the petitioner and his brother are in possession of one room, one store and one chobara out of house No. 185, whereas the respondent is in possession of one room, kitchen-cum-store, common v]arandah and a courtyard. The petitioner further stated that other co-owners of house No. 185, namely, his brother Bal Krishan and sister Prem, have consented to the filing of the present petition.
3. The respondent put in appearance and sought permission of the Court to contest the petition which was granted by the Court vide order dated 7-9-1988. By way of reply, the respondent controverted the various submissions made in the application.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord 7 OPA
(2) Whether the tender is short and invalid OPA.
(3) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation OPA.
(4) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of Sh. Bal Krishan and Smt. Prem OPR.
(5) Whether the petitioner has got a suitable accommodation comprising in Unit No. 182/13 OPR
(6) Whether the petitioner intends to dispose of the property in dispute as alleged by the respondent If so, its effect OPR.
(7) Relief.
5. The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner holding that he is a specified landlord Issue No. 2 was decided against the petitioner as the amount was tendered within tie stipulated period. Issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the petitioner. Issue No. 5 was decided against the respondent. Under issue No. 6, it was held that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that the petitioner intends to dispose of the dispute premises after getting the same vacated. Resultantly, the Rent Controller, in view of findings on issues No. 1 and 4, dismissed the eviction application.
6. The first submission of the learned counsel is that the Rent Controller has, indeed, erred in law in non suiting the petitioner merely on the ground that his brother and sister have not been impleaded as co-landlords. According to the petitioner, even one of the landlords can file eviction application against the respondent. Even otherwise, the tenant has no right to challenge the locus standi of his landlord to file the petition. Elaborating, the counsel referred to the definition of landlord as contained in Section 2(c) of the At which reads as under :-
'2 (c) 'landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord.'
7. The counsel further urged that this precise point as to whether one of the co-landlords can maintain an application for ejectment against his tenant under Section 13 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench in case Mathura Dass v. Ram Piari, 1982 C.L. J. (Civil) 20 which after considering various judgment came to the conclusion that even one of the many co landlords can singly maintain an application for ejectment against his tenant under the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have impleaded Balkrishan and his sister Pren as co-petitioner or, in any case, as proforma respondents. Admittedly, both these persons are also landlords and were thus necessary party to the present petition. Mere statement of Balkrishan that no has no objection to the present petition or riling of an affidavit by the sister, does not remove the inherent defect in the eviction application.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. It is proved on record that the petitioner retired as Station Master from the railway department on 18-3-1988 as per certificate issued by the competent authority. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the house in dispute was owned by Piare Lal, father of the petitioner, on whose death the same has been inherited by the petitioner, his brother and sister. Thus, the sole point which needs close scrutiny is as to whether one of the landlords can maintain a petition under Section 13-A of the Act for getting eviction from the house in dispute. Mathura Das's case (supra), in fact, deals with the query put by the counsel for the respondent. The Division Bench judgment after referring to the various other judgments has come to the conclusion that even one of the landlords can singly maintain an application for ejectment against his tenant under the Act. Somewhat similar proposition came up for consideration in case reported as Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jogannath, 1977 (1) R. C. J. 494. in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. In that case also, one of the objections raised was as to whether one of the co-owners of the premises can file a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises is required for his own occupation as well as for the occupation of the members of his joint family. It was held that even one of the members of the family can maintain such a petition. In the given case also, the other co-owners/co-sharers were not impleaded as party, yet the Court came to the conclusion that ill the same the petitioner is one of the landlords/co-owners and can maintain such a petition without impleading the other co owners/landlords. The court observed that in our social set up a widowed sister, suddenly shipwrecked in the mid-stream of her married life, with no other help returns to parental home or to her brothers where sympathetic and affectionate shelter is readily made available to her In such a case, the additional requirement of the widowed sister and her children may furnish a reasonable requirement of the father or the brothers for the purpose of eviction of their tenant. On these premises, the Court affirmed the views of the various High Courts that even one of the members of the family can maintain an eviction application on the ground of personal requirement. The Court in the above cited judgment further held that a co-owner is, in fact, owner of every part of the composite property alongwith others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. As regards the objection of the respondent that other co-owners have not been impleaded as a party and so the eviction cannot be ordered in favour of the petitioner as it cannot be said that he is a specified landlord qua the whole property is also without any meaning, 'Specified landlord' means a person who is entitled to receive the rent on his own account. Since the co-owner is deemed to be owner in each and every part of the premises, such a person is entitled to receive the rent. Merely for the reason that he is accountable to other for landlord or co-owners is no reason to conclude that such a person cannot seek eviction of his tenant in terms of Section 13-A of the Act. In the present case the petitioner's brother has appeared as a witness in support of the case set up by the petitioner. His sister too has filed an affidavit in this Court to the effect that she has no objection if the prayer for the eviction of the respondent as made by the petitioner is granted by the Court. Thus, I have no hesitation in reversing the finding of the Rent Controller in respect of issues No. 1 and 4. Since other issues have already been decided in favour of the petitioner, I accept this revision petition, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and order for eviction of the respondent. However, in view of the circumstances of the case, I grant three months time to the respondent to deliver the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner subject to his paying depositing all the arrears of rent including the rent for the next three months within a period of one month from the passing of the order. Parties to bear their own costs