# Siya Ram v. District Judge (Incharge ) Barabanki and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 383
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-04-08
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siya-ram-v-district-judge-incharge-barabanki-and-others-41846
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Rule-15(2)-release application by coowner without impleading other coowners-whether maintainable? held-
'yes' as per law laid down by Full Bench
decision of Ram Gopal Sharma case.

Held: Para 16

In view of the above-said facts, I do
not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned
orders
dated
26.11.2010
passed by opposite party no.1 and
order
dated
20.7.2010
passed
by
opposite party no.2 thereby holding
that the release application moved by a
co-owner/ landlord without impleading
other co-owner/landlord of the shop
under the tenancy of the petitioner/
tenant is maintainable.
Case law discussed:
1993 (11) LCD 372; 2010(1) JCLR 307(All);
1987 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases 281; 1977
Allahabad
Rent
Cases
83;
1988
(1)
Allahabad Rent Cases 463; 1993 (11) LCD
372; 2004 (3) ARC 519

## Text

1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (Incharge ) Barabanki and others
383
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Rent Control No. - 4 of 2011

Siya Ram

 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge (Incharge ) Barabanki and
others.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Manish Kumar
Sri P.S.Bajpai

U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of
letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Rule-15(2)-release application by coowner without impleading other coowners-whether maintainable? held-
'yes' as per law laid down by Full Bench
decision of Ram Gopal Sharma case.

Held: Para 16

In view of the above-said facts, I do
not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned
orders
dated
26.11.2010
passed by opposite party no.1 and
order
dated
20.7.2010
passed
by
opposite party no.2 thereby holding
that the release application moved by a
co-owner/ landlord without impleading
other co-owner/landlord of the shop
under the tenancy of the petitioner/
tenant is maintainable.
Case law discussed:
1993 (11) LCD 372; 2010(1) JCLR 307(All);
1987 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases 281; 1977
Allahabad
Rent
Cases
83;
1988
(1)
Allahabad Rent Cases 463; 1993 (11) LCD
372; 2004 (3) ARC 519

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P. Singh , learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.
Bajpai, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite parties.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 26.11.2010 passed by District Judge
( Incharge) Barabanki/opposite party no.1
and the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by
Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) Court
no.13 Barabanki/opposite party no.2 as
contained in anneuxre nos . 1 and 2
respectively.

3. Controversy in the present case
relates to a shop situated Mohalla - Naka
Pergana & Tehsil Nawabganj district
Barabanki . Further Siya Ram petitioner is
a tenant of the aforesaid shop since 1995 .

4. In respect to the said shop owned
by landlord/ respondent no.3 a release
application under Section 21(1) of the Act
no. 13 of 1972 moved on 7.2.2007 .
Accordingly , P.A. Case no. 2 of 2007
registered before the prescribed authority/
Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Barabanki .

5.

On
15.12.2007
a
written
statement filed and on 11.5.2010, an
application under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC
read with Section 34 of U.P. Act no. 13
and Rule 22 of the Rules 1972 moved
inter alia stating therein that other coowners/landlords of the shop in question
not impleaded as a party in the matter in
question so release application moved by
respondent/ one of the landlord is not
maintainable and by the said application
permission was sought to give certain
query / interrogatrise. Landlord filed an
objection to the aforesaid application on
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
3.7.2010. The said application moved by
the tenant on 11.5.2010 registered as
Paper no. GA-58. After considering the
matter on merit , rejected vide order dated
20.7.2010. Aggrieved by the same ,
petitioner/tenant
filed
a
revision
,
dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2010
hence, the present writ petition filed.

6. Sri R. P. Singh learned counsel
for the petitioner while assailing the
impugned order submits that the order in
question passed by respondents no. 1 and
2 are illegal and arbitrary in nature , the
courts below fell error in not appreciating
that as per admitted fact rather not
disputed
can
one
landlord
without
impleading other. Landlord even release
application not signed by other landlord is
not maintainable in view of the provisions
as provided under Rule 15(2) of the U.P.
Urban Building ( Regulation of Letting ,
Rent and Eviction ) Act ,1972 and in this
regard query / interrogatrise has been
asked by the petitioner necessarily for
disposal of the controversy involved in
the present case . Accordingly, orders
passed by courts below are per si illegal
and liable to be set aside.

7. Sri P.S. Bajpai, learned counsel
for the respondents while defending
orders which under challenged in the
present writ petition submits that as per
settled proposition of law when an
application moved by co-landlord for
release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act
no.13 of 1972 without impleading others
he is competent enough to initiate release
proceedings
alone
without
even
impleading co-owners. Accordingly ,
there is neither any illegality or infirmity
in the orders passed by the courts below
and the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner liable to be dismissed. In
support of his arguments he placed
reliance on the following judgments :-

(1) Ram Gopal Sharma Vs. Ist
Additional District Judge, Meerut and
others 1993 (11) LCD 372.

(2) Sarika Kedia Vs. Additional
District Judge , Deoria & others ,
2010(1) JCLR 307 ( All)

8. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and gone through the
record.

9. Undisputed facts of the present
case , petitioner is a tenant of the shop
situated in Mohalla-Naka Pergana &
Tehsil Nawabganj district Barabanki and
in respect to which respondent no.3/
landlord moved an application for release
registered as P.A. Case no .2 of 2007
before opposite party no.2 . On 11.5.2010
an application under Order 11 Rule 1
CPC read with Section 34 of U.P. Act no.
13 and Rule 22 of the Rules 1972 was
moved inter alia stating therein that other
co-owner of the shop in question is not
impleaded as party and further certain
query/ interrogatrise asked , registered as
paper no. Ga-58, rejected by order dated
20.7.2010 passed by prescribed authority .
Revision filed , dismissed by the
revisional authority vide order dated
26.11.2010.

10. In view of the factual
background, the only question which has
to be considered in the instant case
whether an application moved by one of
the co-owner of the property in question
even
their
release
application
is
maintainable without impleading the other
co-owner of the said property or not in
view of the provisions as provided under
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (Incharge ) Barabanki and others
385
Rule 15(2) of the Rules, 1972 quoted
hereunder:-

" 15 . Application for release of
building under occupation of tenant:-
[Section 21(1)]

(1)................................................

(2) The application or its reply shall
be signed and verified in the manner
prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of
Order VI of the First Schedule to the
Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. If there
are
more
than
one
landlords,
the
application shall be signed by all the colandlords.

(3) ............................................."

11. A full Bench of this Court in the
case of Gopal Dass and another Vs. Ist
Additional District Judge, Varanasi and
others , 1987 (1) Allahabad Rent
Cases,281 after considering the Rule
15(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (
Regulation of Letting , Rent and Eviction)
Rules, 1972 has held as under:-

"So far as the applicability of this
Rule to the present case is concerned,
there is not problem. Murlidhar Sah who
has brought the action for eviction of the
premises in question is undoubtedly the
landlord. He was signed the application .
He alone is competent to sign the
application. However, we may point out
that the requirement of Rule 15(2) that an
application for release of premises owned
by co-owners should be signed by all coowners would be invalid. One co-owner is
competent to maintain an action for
eviction of the tenant of the entire
premises, since he can be considered as a
landlord within the meaning of Section 3
(j) of the Act. One co-owner alone would
be competent to sign such an application."

12. Moreover prior to said full
Bench, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Sriram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath
and others, 1977 Allahabad Rent Cases
83 has held as under :-

" It is therefore, clear that the rule
that a co-owner may maintain an action to
eject a trespasser without joining other coowners in such action can have no
application where a co-owners in such
actin can have no application where a coowners seek to evict a tenant who is in
possession
of
the
property
after
determination of the lease. "

13. Thereafter in the case of Laxmi
Devi Vs. Iind Additional District Judge,
Varanasi and others , 1988(1) Allahabad
Rent Cases, 463 this Court has held as
under:-

" In a Full Bench case of Gopal Dass
and others Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge,
Varanasi , reported in 1987(1) ARC 281,
it was held :

" In view of these decisions, there
can, therefore, be little doubt as to the
maintainability of the action of eviction
brought by one co- owners without
impleaidng the other co-owner."

it was also observed that -

" However , we may point out that
the requirement of Rule 15(2) that an
application for release of premises owned
by co-owners should be signed by all coowners would be invalid. One co-owner is
competent to maintain an action for
eviction of the tenant of the entire
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
premises , since he can be considered as a
landlord within the meaning of Section
3(j) of the Act . One co-owner alone
would be competent to sign such an
application."

In Ram Paricha Vs. Jagannath and
others , reported in AIR 1976 SC 2335 it
was observed at 2339 as follows:

"Jurisprudentially it is not correct to
say that a co-owner of property is not its
owner, he owns every part of the
composite property alone with others and
it cannot be said that he is only a
partowner or a fractional owner of the
property . The position will change only
when partition takes place. It is ,
therefore, not possible to accept the
submission that the plaintiff who is
admittedly the landlord co-owner of that
premises is not the owner of the premises
within the meaning of Section 13(1) as
long as he is a co-owner of the property
being at same time the acknowledged
landlord of the defendants."

In Rang Nath V. State of U.P. and
others , reported in 1984 ALJ 455:
1984(1) ARC 642 it was held that a suit
for eviction filed under Section 21 of the
Act by one of the co-owner -landlord
along is maintainable . The same view has
also been taken in the case of Smt.
Vatsala Nayar Vs.Vandana Tandon and
others reported in 1988 (1) ARC 57.
Thus, in view of the decision above, it is
amply clear that the application filed by
the petitioner Smt. Laxmi Devi for the
release of the accommodation under
Section
21
(1)
(a)
is
clearly
maintainability."

14. Same view again reiterated by
this Court in the cases of Ram Gopal
Sharma Vs. Ist Additional District
Judge, Meerut and others , 1993 (11)
LCD 372 and Vijay Bhatt Vs. Shri Julian
Abraham and another , 2004 (3) ARC
519.

15. Recently by this Court in the case
of Sarika Kedia (Supra) after placing
reliance of the Full Bench Judgment of
Gopal Dass ( Supra) held as under:-

" The primary question regrading
release application by one of the colandlords is concerned in a proceeding
under Section 21 of the Act , is competent
enough to institute the release application
all alone impleading other-co-landlords as
proforma opposite parties as it is the
instant case . One perusal of the Full Bench
decision, it is clear that a release
application filed by one of the co-owners is
maintainable even if the other co-owners
are not impleaded . Secondly requirement
of Rule 15(2) of U.P. Urban ( Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act ,1972
was held to be invalid."

16. In view of the above-said facts, I
do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned orders dated 26.11.2010 passed
by opposite party no.1 and order dated
20.7.2010 passed by opposite party no.2
thereby holding that the release application
moved by a co-owner/ landlord without
impleading other co-owner/landlord of the
shop under the tenancy of the petitioner/
tenant is maintainable.

17. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed
as such.

No order as to costs.
---------
1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jahoor Ahmad and others
387
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE V.K. DIXIT, J.

Civil Application No. 16(O) of 2010

Gopal Singh Visharad
 ...Petitioner
Versus.
Jahoor Ahmad and others ...Respondent

With:
Civil Application No. 17(O) of 2010; Civil
Application No. 18(O) of 2010; Civil
Application NO. 19(O) of 2010; Objection
No. 20 of 1989; C.M. Application No.
21(O) of 2010; C.M. Application No.
22(O) of 2010; C.M. Application No.
23(O); C.M. Application No. 24 (O) of
2010

(A)-Code of Civil Procedure-Section 2(2)-
Distinction
between
"judgment"
and
'Decree' explained judgment contains
reasons
and
conclusions-but
decree
contains
formal
expression
of
an
adjudication determining rights of the
parties.

Held: Para 37

The distinction between the "judgment"
and "decree", therefore, is that the
judgment contains reasons as well as the
conclusions
thereof
but
the
decree
contains
formal
expression
of
an
adjudication
conclusively
determining
right of parties with regard to all or any
of the matter in controversy in the suit.
The phrase "all matters in controversy in
the suit" would cover the ultimate
conclusion and adjudication made by the
Court which should form part of decree
as it is this part which has to be normally
put on for execution as provided in Part
II of CPC. It talks of execution of
"decree" and not of the judgment. It is
for this reason Section 33 provides that
after the case has been heard, the Court
shall pronounce judgment and on such
judgment a decree shall follow. It is the
conclusive
determination,
therefore,
which must be expressed formally in the
decree and not the conclusions on
various grounds/ issues considered by
the Judge in judgment. In the context
we are of the view that adjudication
determining
conclusively
rights
of
parties by the Court, which obviously
being
the
majority
decision
would/should contain the part of decree
and not just and mere "expression"
given by all the Judges.

(B)-C.P.C.
Order
XX
Rule-7-Date
of
Decree-should
be
the
date
when
judgment signed-Signature of judges on
decree may be on different date but the
date of Decree must bear the same date
of judgment.

Held: Para 45

This is also evident from Order XX Rule 8
which provides that decree can be signed
by another Judge where the Judge
pronouncing the judgment vacated the
office without signing decree or if the
Court cease to exist, as the case may be.
In this case also D.V. Sharma, J.
pronounced the judgment and retired on
01.10.2010. Hence there was/is no
occasion for him to sign the decree. V.K.
Dixit, J. has been nominated to the
Bench who can sign the decree but
obviously he would not mention the date
30.09.2010 under his signatures. The
Judge's
signature,
therefore,
may
contain the date when sign the decree
but the date of decree would be the date
of pronouncement of judgment. The
objection, therefore, suggesting that the
date of decree must be changed as the
date when signed, is hereby rejected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1946 Madras 348; AIR 1950 Orissa
125(FB); AIR 1954 Hyderabad 104; AIR 1961
MP 223; AIR 1962 Patna 398; AIR 1969
Gujarat 152; (2000) 1 LRI 606