G.M. Lodha, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground of default and personal & reasonable bonafide necessity, which was decreed by the trial court but, dismissed by the first appellate court. The plaintiff Smt. Bhagwati Devi w/o Madan Mohan purchased the disputed property from Chhitar and Dayal sons of Nanu. The defendant respondent was tenant of Chhittar and Dayal.
2. Smt. Bhagwati then filed a civil suit for eviction on the ground of default and bonafide necessity,
3. Jai Prakash, the defendant respondent, in his written statement, admitted that the plaintiff Bhagwati Devi was Landlord (landlady).
4. In para 4 of the written statement, it was alleged by the defendant that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is illegal as the same alleges to have been given by Smt. Bhagwati Devi while it should have been given by both the landlords viz Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Shri Madan Mohan. This admission was further reiterated when defendant stated that the plaintiff wanted to increase the rent where as in the other paragraphs, namely, in para 5(ii) the defendant was not agreeable and in para 16 it was alleged that Smt. Bhagwati & Mohan are landlords.
5. The trial court decreed the suit but the same has been dismissed by the First appellate court on the grounds that the daughters of Nanu were heira of Nanu and they are not parties to the sale deed and the suit in the present case, is not maintainable.
6. Shri J.S. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the appellant plaintiff, submitted that once the rent was paid by the present defendant Jai Prakash to the plaintiff appellant, the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is the landlord then casting of some clouds on the title of the vendors selling the property to the plaintiff cannot result in dismissal of the suit. To make it explicit, Shri Rastogi submitted that although the daughters of Nanu have filed written agreement that they have no objection to the sale but, irrespective of its validity, the fact remains that so far as the defendant Jai Prakash is concerned, he paid rent to Smt. Bhagwati Devi through Madan Mohan, her husband and admitted in the written statement that Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the plaintiff appellant is landlord though hastened to add that Madan Mohan was also landlord who has been collecting the rent on behalf of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. In view of the above, the plaintiff cannot be nonsuited, argued Shri Rastogi. In support of his contention, Shri Rastogi relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak : 3SCR412 in which it was held that one co heir of deceased landlord can sue for eviction in absence of other co-heirs who have no objection.
7. In this decision, their Lordships observed that one co-heir to whom the rent is being paid by the tenant and who receives it on behalf of the estate, would be landlord for the purposes of the Act. Reliance was placed on the other judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Ram Rasricha v. Jagannath : 1SCR395 .
8. In the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, 'Landlord' has been defined as under:
Section 3. Definitions: In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
(i) x x x
(iii) 'Landlord' means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant.
9. It should be noticed that even a person who is not the owner of the property but is receiving the rent, is the landlord.
10. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the finding of the first appellate court cannot be unheld, and that, Smt. Bhagwati Devi is the landlord of (landlady) Jaiprakash.
11. The result on the above discussion is that as the judgment of the trial court was reversed only on this point, that second appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed, the impugned judgment & decree dated the 12th March, 1975 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ajmer, is set aside, and the judgment & decree dated the 13th February, 1974 of the trial court, i.e. Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ajmer city (West) is restored.
12. The parties would bear their own costs.