Bombay High Court
LATE VITHOBA LONKAR DECD THRU LHRSversusASHOK RAMCHANDRA SHEVALE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A single co‑owner may file an eviction suit on behalf of all co‑owners, and the other co‑owners need not be made parties to the suit.
Summary
The petitioners sought relief against the respondents who had filed an application to compel all co‑owners of a property to be made parties to an eviction suit. The High Court held that under settled law a single co‑owner may sue for eviction of a tenant on his own behalf and as an agent of the other co‑owners, and the consent of the others is presumed unless expressly denied. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178 and Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das (2018) 2 SCC 352, which affirm that not all co‑owners need to join an eviction suit. Consequently, the application to add the other co‑owners as parties was dismissed and the writ petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether co‑owners who are not parties to an eviction suit can be compelled to be joined as parties to the suit
Subjects
- eviction
- co‑ownership
- landlord‑tenant
- agency doctrine
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- co‑owners as parties
Judgment
Sonali Mane 7-WP-7516-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7516 OF 2025
Late Vithoba Lonkar Decd. Thru. Lhrs.
Anuradha Anil Lonkar & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
Ashok Ramchandra Shevale & Anr. … Respondents
Adv. Rajesh More for Petitioners.
None for Respondents.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 21 AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The application filed by the Defendants to make the other co-
owners as parties to the proceedings has been dismissed. It is settled
law that one of the co-owners can continue the suit for eviction, and all
the co-owners need not be parties to the suit for eviction.
3. In this regard, reliance can be placed on M/s India Umbrella
Manufacturing Co. & Ors. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by
LRs. Smt. Savitri Agarwalla & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 178, wherein the
Digitally
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
Supreme Court at para no 6 held as under:
DILIP Date:
2026.08.25
14:59:20
+0530
1/2
Sonali Mane 7-WP-7516-2025.docx
"6. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can
file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally
owned by the co-owners. (See Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath
and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, SCC para 25.) This principle
is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit
for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his
own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent
of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that
the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and
the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement".
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanaklata Das and Ors.
Vs. Naba Kumar Das and Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352 at
paragraph 11 has laid down some well-settled principles on the
questions of law in a suit between the landlord and the tenant.
Particularly in paragraph 11.6 as noted below:
"11.6. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit
premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for
eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary
that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction
suit against the tenant. (See Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M.
Chinniyan.)"
5. In view of the same, no case is made out for interference.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
2/2
Checking your session…