S.D. Agarwala, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceedings in Suit No. 633 of 1977 filed by opposite party No. 3 against the petitioner for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages. The premises in dispute is 16/11 Colvin Road, Allahabad. The case of opposite party No. 3 landlord was that the petitioner was a tenant in the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 40 per mensem and since he did not pay the rent in spite of a notice of demand he was a defaulter in the eye of law. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs. 150 per mensem and not Rs. 40 as alleged by the landlord. It was also contended that opposite party No. 3 was not the owner and landlord of the disputed premises and Sri A.K. Agarwal was also the owner of the disputed premises.
2. The Judge Small Cause Court held that opposite party No. 3 was the landlord of the premises and the rate of rent was Rs. 40 per mensem. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner was a defaulter and the suit was consequently decreed by the court by judgment dated 22nd Nov., 1978. Against the judgment dated 22nd Nov., 1978 a revision was filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision was dismissed by the District Judge, Allahabad, on 19th Jan., 1979. Against the decision dated 19th Jan., 1979 the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the present suit was not maintainable as A.K. Agarwal, who was one of the co-owners of the disputed premises has not filed the suit.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset it may be stated that this question was not canvassed by the petitioner before the revisional court but since it is a question of law I permitted the petitioner to raise this question.
5. The petitioner has relied on the statement of opposite party No. 3 wherein it has been admitted by opposite party No. 3. A.K. Agarwal was one of the co-owners of the disputed premises and it was, therefore, urged that since A.K. Agarwal, who was one of the co-owners, has not filed the suit, the suit is not maintainable. In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagarnath, AIR 1976 SC 2335 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider this question. It was opined by Goswami, J. who delivered the judgment for the court as follows:
'The relation between the parties being that of landlord and tenant, only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. It is, therefore, inconceivable to throw out the suit on account of non-pleading of other co-owners as such.'
6. In the present case it has been found by the Judge, Small Cause Court that opposite party No. 3 is the landlord of the premises. In the circumstances the principle laid down in the above case by the Supreme Court fully applies to the present case.
7. A similar question was considered by this Court in Ram Charan v. Ved Prakash, AIR 1980 All 27, A. N. Verma, J., has taken the view that the mere fact that the plaintiff lessor shared the rent received with his co-sharers, does not make the co-sharer also a lessor of the tenant and as such the person who receives the rent has a right to determine the tenancy as well as a right to file a suit for eviction without joining the other co-owners.
8. In view of the above I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed specific reliance on the case of Smt. Sarju Devi v. Prescribed Authority, 1977 (UP) RCC 17 : (AIR 1977 NOC 2) (All). In Smt. Sarju Devi's case (supra) it has been observed as follows:
'Sri Shanti Bhushan is right in his submission that under the general law all the co-owners should join in a suit for eviction of the tenant and that it is not open to some of the co-owners to bring a suit for eviction of the tenant unless the remaining co-lessors have authorised the former to bring the suit for eviction.'
10. Leraned counsel for the petitioner has placed specific reliance on the word 'co-owners' used in the above paragraph. It is clear that the Bench had used the words 'co-owner' as well as 'co-lessor'. The intention of the court was to hold that if a co-lessor is also a co-owner then it would be necessary that the said co-owner should join in a suit for eviction of a tenant. It has not been laid down that even though a person is a co-owner but he is not a co-lessor then too it is necessary that he should join in a suit for eviction. This position of law is further clear from the fact that under Section 105 of the T.P. Act the person who transfers to the transferee a right to enjoy the property is the only lessor and no one else. Therefore, the owner who is the lessor alone is necessary to be made a party to the suit for eviction. In the circumstances, the case of Smt. Sarju Devi (supra) does not assist the petitioner.
11. In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, granted three months' time to vacate the premises. Immediately after the expiry of three months the petitioner shall hand over vacant possession to opposite party No. 3. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.