Rent Act eviction proceedings cannot continue against a tenant who acquires co-ownership of the premises.

The original plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the applicant (tenant) under the Rent Act on grounds of unauthorized construction, subletting, change of user, bona fide requirement, and arrears of rent

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on June 30, 2009

On appeal, the Appellate Bench set aside the Trial Court’s order and passed an eviction decree on May 3, 2014

The applicant challenged this before the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC.

During the pendency of this revision, the applicant purchased a 50% share of the suit property from the legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff No. 2 via a conveyance deed dated April 22, 2016

Furthermore, the surviving original plaintiff (Respondent No. 2) expressed a desire to withdraw the eviction proceedings

Additionally, the applicant had been depositing market rent in the High Court as per an interim order

The Court primarily applied the doctrine of agency in co-ownership as interpreted in India Umbrella Mfg. Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178, which holds that one co-owner acts as an agent for others, but this entitlement ends if subsequent events terminate the body of co-owners' right to eject

It further relied on Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724, establishing that while one co-owner can file a suit, the objection of another co-owner is a relevant fact that can bring eviction proceedings to an end

Regarding the refund of deposits, the court considered the principles from Atmaram Properties v. Federal Motors (2005) SCC (1) 705 in light of the Supreme Court’s specific directions in the SLP arising from this matter

The Court reasoned that when a tenant purchases a portion of the ownership rights, their status is elevated to a dual capacity—part-owner and tenant

In such a scenario, another co-owner cannot continue eviction proceedings under the Rent Act against a fellow co-owner

The Court identified three critical scenarios where eviction must stop: (a) if a co-owner withdraws consent, (b) if a third party who purchased a share objects, or (c) if the tenant purchases a share

Applying these to the facts, the Court noted that since the applicant is now a 50% owner and the other co-owner (Respondent No. 2) also objects to the eviction, the proceedings cannot continue

Regarding the monetary deposits, the Court noted the Supreme Court's observation that the deposits were subject to "final realization" of the revision.

Since the eviction decree was set aside, the basis for paying "market rent" (use and occupation charges) vanished, entitling the successful applicant to a refund

The Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the eviction suit was confirmed

The Court held that once a tenant becomes a co-owner, the landlord-tenant relationship is modified such that eviction under the Rent Act is no longer maintainable if any co-owner objects

The Registry was directed to refund the entire deposited amount (approximately Rs. 60,00,000) along with accrued interest to the applicant

All pending interim applications were disposed of accordingly