O.1, R.10 – Impleadment of party – Impleadment of all joint tenant is not necessary

A decree passed against one joint tenant is building upon other joint 

tenants also which means that proceedings by not impleading all joint tenants 

would not vitiate for this reason alone. If, however, it is shown that joint tenants 

were actually occupying the building in dispute for non residential purposes by 

carrying on business therein, then, of course equitable consideration may 

intervene and he/she may not be evicted under release order, if not impleaded. 

Similarly non impleadment of one of the joint tenant shall not make release 

application, under Act of 1972, non-maintainable or vitiated in law. 

The principles which emerge very clearly in the context of co-
tenant/joint-tenant are: 


(i) A quit notice shall not be invalid if served upon only one of the co-
tenant/joint-tenant and eviction proceedings validly can be instituted 

(ii) Where one or more co-tenants have surrendered their tenancy rights 

(iii) Where a co-tenant claims to have acted through another co-tenant for 

thereupon. 

expressly or impliedly, their non-impleadment in eviction proceedings 

or proceedings initiated by landlord shall not be vitiated. 

example, he claims of paying rent through another co-tenant who is 

actually residing in the tenanted accommodation, the impleadment of 

such co-tenant who is actually residing in accommodation in a 

proceeding without impleading the former one, would mean due 

notice to the former one and the decree passed in such proceedings 

shall be binding on the former co-tenant of though he was not party 

thereto.



(iv) The eviction proceedings and decree passed in a case where all the co-
tenants and joint-tenants would not be impleaded would be valid and 

(v) Where all the co-tenants/joint-tenants are enjoying the tenancy rights 

(vi) The objection of non-impleadment, however, shall not be heard at the 

binding on all, provided the co,) tenants who have participated in the 

proceedings, have not colluded with landlord. A co-tenant not 

impleaded in such proceedings cannot be allowed subsequently to 

wriggle out the binding force of decree only on the ground that he was 

not impleaded in the proceedings. 

by residing in the property or otherwise, a landlord may not adopt a 

selective method of initiating proceedings for eviction by impleading 

only one or few of them and leaving others. It goes without saying 

that where such kind of selective impleadment is found coloured with 

collusive proceeding, misrepresentation, fraud etc., such decree shall 

not be binding on a co-tenant or joint-tenant, not party to such 

proceeding. 

instance of a co-tenant who is very well represented in eviction 

proceedings and himself/herself has full opportunity to contest the 

matter. 

(Hazara Begum v. Mansoor Ali Haji Ali; 2013 (2) ALJ 422)