ORDER Jagmohan Lal, J.
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from a plot of land which had been let out to him by the previous owner. That owner sold e portion of that land to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the rest of it to the pro forma defendant-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. After that all the three respondents became the landlords. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the defendant-appellant by a lawyer on behalf of all these three persons terminating the tenancy of the defendant and requiring him to vacate the land on the expiry of thirty days from the receipt of the notice. The defendant-appellant did not comply with that notice. So the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant in which the other two landlords were impleaded as pro forma respondents. The plaintiff claimed a decree for ejectment against the defendant-appellant in favour of herself and the pro forma respondents in respect of the entire land and in the alternative a decree in her own favour with respect to her portion of the land in dispute which had been demarcated by letters A B C D in the Commissioner's map. The suit was decreed by the trial court. An appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed by the lower appellate court. That court however specified the land from which the plaintiff alone could eject the defendant-appellant and the remaining land from which the pro forma defendants Nos. 2 and 3 could eject him.
2. The tenant has now filed this second appeal. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The only point raised by him was that unless all the three landlords had joined as plaintiffs in the suit, no decree for eviction could be passed against the appellant. This proposition on the face of it appears unacceptable. If a joint right vests in two or more persons, some of whom are not willing to join or due to some other reason are unable to join as plaintiffs, they can always be impleaded as pro forma defendants end the remaining persons who file the suit as plaintiffs can claim a decree for the common benefit of themselves and the pro forma defendants. This is what was done in the present case also.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of this Court in Ram Swarup v. Roshan, (1964 All WR (HC) 294) in which it was observed that the suit for ejectment could only be brought by both the lessors jointly who had created the tenancy in favour of the appellant and that the tenancy could not be terminated by and the relief for eviction could not be granted to any one of the two co-lessors. These observations were made in the context of the facts of that case which were entirely different In that case, only one of the co-lessors had given notice terminating the tenancy and thereafter he alone filed the suit without impleading the other co-lessor even as a pro forma defendant. But he made an allegation that the other co-lessor was dead and after his death he alone was the lessor. This allegation of his was found to be incorrect. On these facts obviously neither the tenancy had been validly terminated by and on behalf of both the lessors nor the suit had been filed either by both of them or even by one of them for the common benefit of himself and the other co-lessor. That decision has no application to the facts of the present case. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs-respondents. The defendant-appellant is allowed one month's time from this date to vacate the land failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to execute his decree.