In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court set aside an eviction decree after noting that the tenant had acquired a 50% ownership stake in the disputed property during the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The matter, Krishnakumar K. Ashar vs. Archie John Varel & Ors., arose from an eviction suit filed on grounds including unauthorized construction, subletting, and arrears of rent. Initially, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2009.
However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision in 2014, granting relief to the landlords. Aggrieved, the tenant approached the High Court through a civil revision application.
During the pendency of the proceedings, a key development occurred: the tenant purchased a 50% share in the property through a registered conveyance deed in 2016.
Justice Rajesh S. Patil examined the legal position on co-ownership and eviction. The Court relied on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, observing that while one co-owner can initiate eviction proceedings, such proceedings cannot continue if another co-owner objects.
“The moment the tenant acquires ownership rights, even partially, his status changes,” the Court noted, emphasizing that a tenant who becomes a co-owner holds dual rights both as tenant and owner.
The Court further clarified that once such ownership is acquired, eviction proceedings cannot be continued against that person.
It also took note of the fact that one of the original co-owners had earlier expressed unwillingness to proceed with eviction and reiterated the same before the Court.
Key Legal Finding
The bench outlined that in cases of co-ownership:
- If one co-owner withdraws consent, eviction cannot proceed.
- If a tenant purchases a share in the property, eviction proceedings lose their basis.
“The eviction proceedings cannot be proceeded further against the tenant once he becomes a co-owner,” the Court effectively held.
Allowing the revision application, the Court quashed the Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s order dismissing the eviction suit.
Additionally, the Court directed that the amounts deposited by the tenant during the proceedings be refunded along with accrued interest, noting that the tenant had ultimately succeeded.
All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
