July 23, 2018
Case name: Navin Chander Anand v. Union Bank of Indian & Ors.
The crux of the litigation was that the Appellant being the co-owner/co-landlord of the suit property applied for termination of tenancy.
The Appellant has challenged the Trial Court’s order, whereby the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit for possession and mesne profits on the ground that the appellant being only one co-owner/co-landlord cannot claim possession and recovery of damages once the other co-owners have not supported the appellant and have opposed the termination of tenancy by the appellant/plaintiff.
The High Court of Delhi in the case dismissed the appeal and made the following observations in the case:
That when there are various co-owners/co-landlords, only one co-owner/co-landlord cannot terminate the tenancy for seeking possession of the tenanted property and/or mesne profits.
While arriving at the aforesaid verdict, the High Court made reference to Supreme Court’s order in the cases of Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari Vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate and Jagdish Dutt and Another Vs. Dharam Pal and Others.
The High Court also observed that one co-owner can file a suit for eviction against a tenant if there is no opposition of the other co-owners/co-landlords. This is the settled law because in the proceedings for eviction under various Rent Control Acts, any one co-owner can seek possession of the tenanted premises in case there is no opposition to the sole petitioner/plaintiff taking possession of the tenanted premises from the tenant by the other co-owners/co-landlords of the property.
The entire case can be accessed here.
 (1996) 6 SCC 373
 (1999) 3 SCC 644