property in question is jointly owned by several persons and if consent of the co-owners is not shown, the eviction would not be permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was laying down the law, while considering a petition for eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 where the Court, however, cautioned that the consent of other co-owners was not a precondition and so long as co-owners did not have objection to the eviction petition, the suit for eviction would be maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reads the judgment to an inference that such a petition would be maintainable only if it is not objected and in this case another co-owner has objected to the petition and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. This argument is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent and which, in my view, correct by that if only the tenancy had commenced at the instance of all the co-owners and the other co-owners could also be treated as landlord, an action for eviction at the instance of one co-owner alone without the consent of other co-owners would not be tenable. He points out that the initial letting itself had been made in the year 1980, when the present landlord was the only landlord. The rent note itself was executed by only one of the co-owners. The purchaser of the property under whom the tenant's husband now claims as a co-owner, has never acted in his capacity as a landlord at any time. Indeed, even Krishna Wati under whom he claims did not assert her right as a co-owner landlord at any point of time. The purchaser had assumed the possession of only the ground floor when the tenanted premises itself was with reference to the first floor and the second floor.
