Recently, the Bombay High Court had ruled that the co-owner of a property has the right to seek eviction of tenants even without a formal partition of the property and without active consent of the other co-owners. This judgement (2026:BHC-AS:17480) by the Bombay High Court cited a landmark Supreme Court case (2006 2 SCC 724) which had given a similar ruling.
The Supreme Court in its judgment on Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724 case held that any co-owner can file a suit on behalf of the other co-owner. However, if a co-owner objects to such eviction proceedings, it will be relevant and taken into account.
The Supreme Court in that judgement had said that it is well established that one of the co-owners can file a suit to evict tenants from a property belonging to the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. (related judgement: Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibar)
In that case, the Supreme Court had ruled that 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 other co-owners. The consent of the other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners did not want to to evict the tenant and the suit was filed despite their disagreement.
The Supreme Court had also said that a tenant eviction case filed by a co-owner is legally valid, meaning that the co-owner doesn’t need to prove that they have the agreement or consent of the co-owners before starting the eviction process with the Rent Controller.
The Supreme Court had said: “However, in the event a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a relevant fact.” This means that co-owners can file a tenant eviction case as courts assume the co-owner has consent of the other owners. But if the other owners come forward and explicitly say that they don’t want to evict the tenants, then the case can weaken.
Also read: Daughter becomes co-owner of family property via oral arrangement; she files tenant eviction case and wins in Supreme Court
What does this mean for joint property owners?
Adnan Siddiqui, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET Wealth Online that this means for joint property owners a complete alignment of their views regarding tenant eviction needs to be there before either initiating or continuing eviction proceedings.
Siddiqui says: “Courts generally permit one co-owner to file an eviction suit on behalf of all co-owners based on implied consent. However, if even one co-owner later opposes the eviction or transfers his share in a manner that changes the ownership equation, the entire eviction action may become vulnerable.”
Also read: Landlord entitled to higher rent if tenant overstays even after seeking more time to vacate property in this situation
Internal dispute among co-owners can weaken tenant eviction case
In the case cited here, the co-owners were all united by an oral arrangement. However, there was another case where in the midst of a tenant eviction case, one of the co-owners sold his share of the property to the tenant, who thus became a co-owner and won the eviction case.
Therefore, Siddiqui advises that co-owners should clearly document their consent and litigation strategy at the beginning. Internal disputes among co-owners can substantially weaken eviction proceedings, particularly in long-pending tenancy matters.
Another important learning is that transfer of ownership during litigation can have serious legal consequences. Siddiqui says: “If a tenant acquires even a partial ownership interest in the property, the nature of the dispute changes fundamentally and may defeat the eviction claim altogether.”
The present case also highlights the importance of conducting careful title and succession planning in jointly owned properties, especially where family-owned assets, inherited properties, or multiple stakeholders are involved.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 