The Rajasthan High Court recently made a significant observation regarding eviction suits involving joint tenants. The court held that a decree issued in an eviction suit against one of the joint tenants would have binding implications for all other tenants. This ruling came in response to a case where one of the tenants had contested the eviction decree through a legal suit.

The High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana, dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of the tenant's suit. Justice Rekha Borana emphasized that when the tenancy is deemed joint, serving notice to one of the joint tenants is deemed sufficient. Furthermore, the court clarified that initiating legal action against a single tenant within a joint tenancy is considered valid. Consequently, any decree resulting from such a lawsuit holds sway over all the tenants involved.

In the legal proceedings, Senior Advocate R.K. Thanvi represented the appellant, Moolchand, and his legal representatives. On the other side, Advocate Saurabh Maheshwari appeared for the respondents, Lilaram, and the landlord.

In 1968, two shops were leased jointly to Moolchand and Lilaram. Subsequently, during an eviction suit against both tenants, Lilaram asserted that he was the sole tenant and that Moolchand was not involved. Moolchand voluntarily consented to having his name removed from the suit. In 2001, a decree for eviction was issued against Lilaram. However, in 2005, Moolchand filed a suit aiming to declare the decree null and void, contending that he was indeed a tenant and had not been included in the earlier suit.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected Moolchand's claim. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Moolchand's legal representatives pursued a second appeal in the High Court, seeking to challenge the dismissal of the suit and obtain a declaration that the eviction decree was invalid. The appellants put forth the argument that Moolchand was indeed a tenant and should have been included in the earlier suit, making the decree non-binding on him. In contrast, the respondents contended that Moolchand had relinquished his tenancy and willingly agreed to the removal of his name from the suit.

The court took note of an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) filed by Lilaram in the appeal. This application sought to introduce seven documents into the record, including five orders or judgments from Civil Courts in past proceedings related to the same disputed property. Among these documents, Annex.-R/1/1 is a copy of the application under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the CPC filed by landlords in a previous suit, requesting the deletion of the appellant's name. Annex.-R/1/7 is a copy of the undertaking filed by Lilaram/respondent before the Trial Court, complying with the judgment passed by the court in a previous second appeal. These documents formed a crucial part of the ongoing legal proceedings.

The court acknowledged the relevance of all the submitted documents, which pertained to earlier proceedings involving the same parties and the disputed property. Out of these, five were orders or judgments from Civil Courts, and the remaining two were uncontested. Considering that pleadings had been made regarding these documents in the present suit, the court granted the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. This allowed the inclusion of the documents in the record, facilitating a more efficient resolution of the ongoing dispute. Upon a thorough examination, the court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. It noted that Moolchand had never claimed to have paid rent to the landlord, and there was a lack of evidence supporting such a payment. The legal representatives of Moolchand failed to establish any business dealings conducted with him in the rented premises.

Furthermore, the court observed that if Moolchand were considered a joint tenant, he would be bound by the 2001 decree. The court concluded that Moolchand had effectively waived or surrendered any tenancy rights, and the adverse inference from their absence in the witness box was justified. Additionally, the power of attorney holder for Moolchand was deemed unable to testify on matters known only to the principal.

Consequently, the court held that Moolchand and his representatives were bound by the 2001 decree and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal along with imposing a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Case: Manoj v Kailashchandra

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 280/2022.