Judgment :- K.N. Keshavanarayana, J. This appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 6.9.2007 passed by the XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.8298/2001 decreeing the said suit filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein and directing the appellants No.1 and 2 to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiffs and also directing the defendants to jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-towards the arrears of rent and to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/-p.m. from the date of the suit till delivery of the vacant possession of schedule premises, to the plaintiffs. 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs No.1 and 2, while appellants No.1 and 2 are the defendants No.1 and 2 in the Court below. Respondent No.3-P. Jagadish Chadaga, the brother of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 was subsequently impleaded as defendant No.3. The parties herein are referred hereinafter with reference to their ranking in the Court below. 3. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed the aforesaid suit in the Court below seeking Judgment and Decree against the Defendants No.1 and 2 directing them to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises, to pay the arrears of rental of Rs.4,50,000/-as on 30.9.2001 and to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/-p.m., from 1.10.2001 onwards till the delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises. The subject matter of the suit is the ground and mezzanine floors of the commercial premises bearing No.969/29, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010, in all measuring about 3179 square feet. 4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:- The plaintiffs 1 and 2 being the brothers are the landlords of the schedule premises and the defendants 1 and 2 are the tenants under them in respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/-. The defendants became tenants of the schedule premises from 1.4.2000. The defendants are continuous defaulters in the matter of payment of monthly rents and they have not paid rents from 1.4.2000 onwards and as on 30.9.2001, they are in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-.The two cheques issued by the second defendant in favour of the first plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/-and Rs.1,25,000/-respectively towards the arrears of rent were dishonoured when presented for encashment. Thus, the defendants are total defaulters in the matter of payment of rent, as such, they are not entitled to continue their tenancy under the plaintiffs. In view of this conduct of the defendants in withholding the rentals right from the date of inception of tenancy, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 4.9.2001 to the defendants demanding the arrears of rents, determining and also terminating the tenancy of the defendants in respect of the schedule premises. Though the defendants have received the said notice, they have failed to pay the arrears of rent due and also to vacate the schedule premises nor they have replied the said notice. Thus, in view of termination of tenancy, the possession of the schedule premises by the defendants became unauthorised and illegal. Therefore, they are liable to pay the damages for wrongful use and occupation of the schedule premises from 1.10.2001. With the above contentions, the plaintiffs sought for the reliefs as noted above. 5. Upon service of suit summons, the defendants 1 and 2 appeared in the Court below and filed their written statement, interalia contending that there is no cause of action for the suit, as, agreed period of lease was 10 years and the same has not yet expired. Though they admitted their status as tenant in the schedule premises, they disputed the correctness of the measurements of the schedule premises as stated in the schedule to the plaint. They disputed the averments that they became tenant of the schedule premises from 1.4.2000, however, they admitted the monthly rent of premises as Rs.25,000/-. They disputed the correctness of the averments made in the plaint that they are the tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule premises. They also denied the allegation that they are continuous defaulters in the matter of payment of rents and that they have not paid the rents from 1.4.2000 and that they are in arrears of rent to an extent of Rs.4,50,000/-. They denied the allegations that the cheques issued by the second defendant in favour of the first plaintiff were dishonoured. They further contended that the plaintiffs have received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs, which is acknowledged in the Lease Deed and they have also received rents upto June 2001. They denied the allegations that the cheques issued by the second defendant in favour of the first plaintiff were dishonoured. They further contended that the plaintiffs have received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs, which is acknowledged in the Lease Deed and they have also received rents upto June 2001. Subsequent to June 2001, since the plaintiffs refused to receive the rent, the same was deposited in H.R.C.No.483/2001 before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. They further contended that the plaintiffs have received the money covered under the cheques and failed to return the same and have presented the same for encashment with an intention to cheat the defendants. They denied the allegation that the plaintiffs have issued a legal notice on 4.9.2001 and they denied having received any such notice. It is their further contention that the tenancy in respect of the schedule premises has not been terminated in accordance with law, as such they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises and they are not liable to be evicted from the same. They also contended that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit and the Court Fee paid on the plaint is not sufficient. Alternatively, they also contended that assuming for the purpose of argument that there was valid termination of the tenancy, the conduct of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit, makes it clear that they have waived the same. With these contentions, the defendants 1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant No.3, who was subsequently impleaded, did not file any written statement. 7. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient? 2. Whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit schedule property wherein the defendant is in occupation as tenant? 3. Whether the termination of tenancy is as per law? 4. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendants is in arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.4,50,000/-? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession? 6. To what order or relief the parties are entitled? Additional issue:- The valuation slip whether is proper? 8. During the trial, the first plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex P1 to P13. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession? 6. To what order or relief the parties are entitled? Additional issue:- The valuation slip whether is proper? 8. During the trial, the first plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex P1 to P13. On the other hand, defendants 1 and 2 examined themselves as DWs-1 and 2 and got marked Ex D1 to D7. The first defendant though filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 17.1.2007, he was not subsequently examined further nor subjected to cross-examination. Therefore his evidence was eschewed from consideration. After hearing both the sides, the Court below by the Judgment and Decree under appeal answered issue No.1 and additional issue in the negative and issue Nos.2 to 5 in the affirmative. Consequently, Court below decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants 1 and 2 to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiffs within 90 days from the date of the Judgment and also to pay Rs.4,50,000/-to the plaintiffs towards arrears of rent upto 30.9.2001 and Rs.25,000/-p.m., as damages from 1.10.2001 till the delivery of possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiffs. 9. In the light of the findings on issue No.1 and on additional issue, the Court below directed the plaintiffs to pay Court Fee on the amount claimed as damages from 1.10.2001. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the Court below, the defendants 1 and 2 have presented this appeal. 10. Upon service of notice of this appeal, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have appeared through their advocates. 11. During the pendency of this appeal, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed two applications viz., IA-I/2007 and IA-IV/2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, seeking permission to produce additional documents. The plaintiffs have opposed these applications. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides. 13. Sri Ravi Varma Kumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the defendants/appellants contended that the defendants have made out sufficient grounds for grant of permission to adduce additional documents and that the additional documents are very much material for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the appeal and they are just and necessary for the proper decision in the appeal. 13. Sri Ravi Varma Kumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the defendants/appellants contended that the defendants have made out sufficient grounds for grant of permission to adduce additional documents and that the additional documents are very much material for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the appeal and they are just and necessary for the proper decision in the appeal. He further contended that while considering the applications for additional evidence, the Court should not adopt hyper-technical and rigid approach. He further contended that the evidence placed by the defendants particularly the receipt dated 16.3.2001-Ex D7 clearly establishes that the defendants have paid rents upto February 2001 and the documentary evidence further establishes that since the plaintiffs refused to receive subsequent rents, the defendants filed a petition before the competent Court under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in H.R.C.No.483/2001 and have deposited the subsequent rents in Court. Therefore, the defendants were not in any arrears of rent as on the date of the alleged notice issued by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the alleged termination of tenancy on the ground of default in payment of rent is bad in law and the Court below has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter. It is his further contention that the learned trial Judge has not considered the evidentiary value of Ex D7 and the learned trial Judge has not recorded any definite finding as to whether Ex D7 is acceptable or not? He further contended that there are three co-owners/lessors in respect of the schedule premises and since only two of them have filed the suit, the suit is not maintainable. He further contended that the notice-Ex P1 is supposed to have been sent on behalf of all the three co-owners, but in the reply submitted by defendant No.3 to the interrogatories delivered to him in the Court below, he has stated that he has not authorised the plaintiffs to issue notice, as such, the notice as per Ex P1 is an unauthorised one, in so far as defendant No.3 is concerned, as such Ex P1 is not a valid notice. He further contended that though defendants 1 and 2 have filed IA-23 in the Court below seeking to amend the written statement with regard to defendant No.3 receiving amount of Rs.2,00,000/-on 20.7.2007 towards future rents commencing from 1.8.2007 and to continue the lease of the schedule premises in favour of defendants 1 and 2, the Court below has erroneously and on untenable grounds, rejected the said application and the order rejecting the said application is also challenged in this appeal. 14. Per contra, Sri Sampathkumar, learned Advocate appearing for plaintiffs 1 and 2 sought to support the reasonings of the Court below and further contended that in the light of evidence placed by the plaintiffs on record, the Court below is justified in holding that the tenancy of the defendants have been duly terminated as such they are liable for eviction and that there are no ground to interfere with the Judgment of the Court below. He further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are admittedly the co-owners and landlords of the schedule premises in occupation of defendants 1 and 2 is maintainable. He further contended that the Court below has rightly rejected the application-IA 23 filed for amendment at a belated stage only with a view to drag on the matter, therefore, there is no error in the order of the Court below in rejecting the said application. He further contended that the defendants have not made out any grounds for grant of permission to lead additional evidence or to produce additional documents and the documents sought to be produced are not admissible in evidence and therefore, the applications are liable to be rejected. 15. In the light of the above, the following points arise for our consideration:- 1. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 have made out sufficient grounds for permission to produce the additional evidence as sought in IA-I/2007 and IA-IV/2008? 2. Whether the Court below was justified in rejecting IA-23 and refusing to permit the defendants 1 and 2 to amend the written statement? 3. Whether the suit filed for ejectment only by two of the three co-owners of the property, is maintainable? 4. Whether the Court below was justified in holding that the tenancy of the defendants 1 and 2 has been properly terminated? 5. Whether the Judgment of the Court below calls for interference by this Court? 16. 3. Whether the suit filed for ejectment only by two of the three co-owners of the property, is maintainable? 4. Whether the Court below was justified in holding that the tenancy of the defendants 1 and 2 has been properly terminated? 5. Whether the Judgment of the Court below calls for interference by this Court? 16. PONT NO.1: The principle of law as to under what circumstances the Appellate Court could permit production of additional evidence is now well-settled. As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce oral or documentary evidence in the appellate Court. However, if the circumstances stated in clauses (a), (aa) & (b) of sub-rule (1) are shown to exist, the appellate court may allow such additional evidence or documents to be produced or witnesses to be examined. 17. Under IA-I/2007, the defendants 1 and 2 have sought to produce a receipt said to have been issued by the third defendant on 20.7.2007, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-from defendant No.1 by way of cheque towards advance rent payable from 1.8.2007 in respect of the schedule premises and also a copy of the reply said to have been filed by the third defendant in the Court below to the interrogatories delivered to him. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the first defendant has stated that the third defendant has taken a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-from him as future rents from 1.8.2007 and has issued a receipt and therefore the third respondent has not terminated the lease. He has further stated that a copy of this document is part of the lower Court records, but, the original requires for the purpose of admission. He has further stated that the third defendant gave a copy of the reply submitted by him to the interrogatories delivered to him, but did not file the original into the Court and therefore it is a necessary and relevant document. In IA-IV/2008, the defendants have sought permission to produce the original agreement of lease dated 19.4.2000, which is said to contain the alleged receipt executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 for having received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs on 20.7.2000. In IA-IV/2008, the defendants have sought permission to produce the original agreement of lease dated 19.4.2000, which is said to contain the alleged receipt executed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 for having received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs on 20.7.2000. The averments made in this application are that this document could not be produced earlier as it was lost and inspite of the best efforts made by the defendants 1 and 2, this document could not be traced earlier. It is further stated that the contents of the additional documents now sought to be produced clearly show that a sum of Rs.8 lakhs was paid as advance and if the document is not permitted to be produced or brought on record, great injustice would be caused to the defendants 1 and 2 and therefore it is just and necessary to permit the defendants 1 and 2 to produce the additional documents. 18. In the objection filed to IA-IV/2008, the plaintiffs have contended that for the reasons best known to them the defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to produce the lease deed before the Court below. The plaintiffs further contended that the alleged endorsement made in the original Lease Deed for having received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from the defendants 1 and 2 on 20.7.2000 is a forged and concocted endorsement and the admissions made by the second defendant during the cross-examination before the trial Court also clearly establishes that the alleged payment of Rs.8 lakhs is a created story and an after thought. They further contended that the answer elicited in the cross-examination during the trial, clearly establishes that the original lease deed entered into between the parties was in the possession of defendants 1 and 2, but deliberately the same was not produced and therefore there are no grounds made out for permission to produce the additional documents. 19. As noticed above a copy of the first additional document sought to be produced in IA-I/2007 was already produced in the Court below. From this, it is clear that the defendants 1 and 2 were in possession and control of the said document. 20. Admittedly, the said document is not executed by the plaintiffs. The said document is stated to have been executed by the third defendant in favour of defendants 1 and 2 during the pendency of the suit. From this, it is clear that the defendants 1 and 2 were in possession and control of the said document. 20. Admittedly, the said document is not executed by the plaintiffs. The said document is stated to have been executed by the third defendant in favour of defendants 1 and 2 during the pendency of the suit. It is not shown as to how this document is relevant for the proper decision in this appeal. The defendants 1 & 2 have not set out any satisfactory reasons as to why this document was not produced before the Court below and not admitted in the evidence. This document in our considered opinion is not relevant document for pronouncement of Judgment in this appeal. The second document sought to be produced under IA-I/2007 is a xerox copy of the reply said to have been filed by the defendant No.3 to the interrogatories delivered to him. Even according to the defendants 1 and 2 the original of the said reply has not been field by the third defendant into the Court. Therefore, the copy of the reply said to have been filed by the third defendant to the interrogatories delivered in the court below is not a relevant document for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in this appeal. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 have not made out any ground much less satisfactory grounds to permit them to produce additional documents as mentioned in IA-I/2007. 21. In IA-IV/2008 as noticed above, the defendants sought to produce the original agreement of lease deed dated 19.4.2000, which according to the defendants 1 and 2 contains an endorsement regarding receipt of Rs.8 lakhs by the lessors/plaintiffs 1 and 2 from defendants 1 and 2 on 20.7.2000. The ground on which the defendants 1 and 2 are seeking permission to produce this document as additional evidence is that this document could not be produced earlier as it was lost and inspite of their best efforts they could not trace the same earlier and now they have traced the same and producing the same before this Court. 22. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have seriously disputed this statement of defendants 1 and 2. 22. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have seriously disputed this statement of defendants 1 and 2. They have contended that this document is not admissible in evidence in as much as it is not properly stamped and not registered though it is a compulsorily registerable document, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this document. However, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the defendants 1 and 2 are placing reliance on this document only to prove the endorsement made therein, therefore, for collateral purpose of proving the payment of Rs.8 lakhs to the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the document is admissible in evidence though it is not registered as per law. 23. There is no serious dispute that the document, which is sought to be produced styled as "Agreement of Lease" is not properly stamped. As per the terms of this document, the period of lease is 10 years. Therefore, it is a compulsorily registerable document. However, this document is not registered. As per Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act no instrument, which is not properly stamped, can be received in evidence by any Court for any purpose. Thus, as per Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, a document insufficiently stamped cannot be received in evidence for any purpose. No doubt, an unregistered document can be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes as provided by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. However, the prohibition under Section 34 of the Stamp Act is total. Therefore, the document sought to be produced, which is admittedly not properly stamped, cannot be allowed to be admitted in evidence for any purposes. Therefore, we see considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent as to the admissibility of this document. 24. In addition to this, the perusal of the evidence of DW-2 indicates that during the cross-examination, he has admitted that it was through a lease deed executed on 1.4.2000, the defendant No.1 and 2 took the suit premises under lease from the plaintiffs. However, he denies the further suggestion that the original lease deed was delivered to them and that they had deposited the same with their Banker for securing a loan. However, he denies the further suggestion that the original lease deed was delivered to them and that they had deposited the same with their Banker for securing a loan. However, during the course of further cross-examination, it is elicited from DW-2 that for the decoration of their hotel for the business purposes, they have availed loan from Vijaya Bank, Ganganagar Branch, Bangaluru. He has admitted the further suggestion that while availing that loan, they had submitted the lease deed to the said Bank to show that they are the tenants in the schedule premises and thereafter they availed loan. From this admission, it is clear that the original document, which is now sought to be produced was very much with the defendants 1 and 2 and for the reasons best known to them the said document was not produced in the Court below. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the defendants 1 and 2 have not made out any good ground for permitting them to produce the additional documents mentioned in IA-IV/2008. No doubt, in the case of Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy and Others reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 115, relied up on by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants 1 and 2, it is observed that "the High Court appears to have adopted a very rigid and technical approach in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff to lead additional evidence to prove testamentary succession by producing the registered will". In that reported case, the validity of the will was sought to be challenged by way of amendment. Therefore, in that case, the plaintiff acquired a right to lead evidence to prove its authenticity. It is in that context, the Apex Court held that the High Court was not justified in rejecting permission to produce the registered will. The observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the case. 25. Therefore, in that case, the plaintiff acquired a right to lead evidence to prove its authenticity. It is in that context, the Apex Court held that the High Court was not justified in rejecting permission to produce the registered will. The observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the case. 25. In the case of Kamalamma v. Somasekharappa reported in AIR 1963 Mysore 136 (V 50 C 28), a division bench of this Court has held that where, except a bare allegation in the affidavit to the effect that the document had been mislaid, there is no material from which the Court could be satisfied that inspite of exercise of due diligence on the part of the appellant, the documents could not be produced before the Court of trial, there is no justification for allowing the appellant to produce the additional evidence at the appellate stage. 26. The above observations of the Division Bench, aptly applies to the facts of this case. Though the defendants contend that the document in question was lost and inspite of their best efforts, the same could not be traced earlier, the admission made by DW-2 in the cross-examination completely falcifies the said statement. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the defendants 1 and 2 have not made out any ground for production of the additional documents as sought in the application. Therefore, IA-I/2007 and IA-IV/2008 filed by the defendants 1 and 2 seeking permission to produce additional documents have no merit and they are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the negative. 27. PONT NO.2: No doubt, in this appeal, defendants 1 and 2 have questioned the correctness of the order dated 3.3.2007 passed by the Court below on IA No.23. Under IA No.23, the defendants sought to amend the written statement by contending that defendant No.3 had never authorized the plaintiffs to terminate the tenancy or to file the suit and that the plaintiffs have approached the court by taking up false plea and that in continuation of the intent to recognize the defendants as tenants and with an intent to continue the lease of the defendants, the third defendant has received Rs.2 lakhs on 20.7.2007 towards future rents commencing from 1.8.2007, under those circumstances, the suit is not maintainable. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The Court below rejected the said application on three grounds, namely., defendants 1 and 2 have gone on filing application after application for amendment of written statement and the instant application was the fourth one in the series and therefore the application is filed only with a view to drag on the matter. Secondly, that the proposed amendment, which is in the nature of subsequent event is not at all warranted. Thirdly, the Court below has held that the application filed at a belated stage for amendment of pleadings after the commencement of the trial cannot be permitted unless it is established that inspite of due diligence by the parties, he could not bring that matter to the notice of the Court at the earliest. As noticed above, DW-2 during the cross-examination has categorically admitted that through a lease deed dated 1.4.2000 the defendants 1 and 2 took the suit property on lease from plaintiffs. From this admission, it is clear that the defendants have admitted plaintiffs as their landlords. Having admitted that the lease of the premises was taken from plaintiffs, it is not open to the defendants to contend that the defendant No.3 has continued the lease by receiving Rs.2 lakhs towards future rents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no error committed by the Court below in rejecting IA No.23. Therefore, we see no ground to interfere with the said order. Hence, we answer point No.2 in the negative. 28. POINT NO.3: The perusal of the oral evidence on record clearly indicates that there is no dispute that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the co-owners and the landlords of the schedule premises. The defendants have not disputed their status as tenants in the schedule premises. Their only contention is that the suit is not maintainable, as all the co-owners of the property have not joined as plaintiffs. The principle of law as to whether one of the co-owners of a tenanted property can maintain a suit for ejectment of the tenant is now well settled by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Their only contention is that the suit is not maintainable, as all the co-owners of the property have not joined as plaintiffs. The principle of law as to whether one of the co-owners of a tenanted property can maintain a suit for ejectment of the tenant is now well settled by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 184 ), the Apex Court has held thus in para 27: "Jurisprudentially, it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change when partition takes place. xxxxxx" In Kanta Goal v. B.P. Pathak, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 814 ), referring to the observation in Sri Ram Pasricha's case referred to supra, has observed thus in para 7: "7. This Court in Sri Ram Pascricha (1976) 4 SCC 184 ), clarified that a co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of the property is; Jurisprudentially, it is not correct to say that a co-owner of property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property ......" Again in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16 , the Apex Court following the law laid down in the above referred cases, has held thus in para 16: "16. It is well settled by at lease three decisions of this court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath; Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and Pal Singh v. Sundar Singh, that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a factional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such co-owners do not object." In India Umbrella Manufacturing Company v. Bhagabandel Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178 , the Apex Court has reiterated the above principles and has observed thus in para 6: "6. xxxx. 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 Pascricha v. Jagannath and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai). 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 the 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 inspite of their disagreement." 29. Thus, from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above noted decisions, it is clear that it is not necessary or mandatory for all the co-owners to join as parties to file suit for ejectment. One of the co-owners can maintain a suit for ejectment of tenant unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed inspite of their disagreement. The perusal of the record indicates that on the application of defendant Nos.1 and 2, defendant No.3 was impleaded. However, defendant No.3 did not file any written statement nor adduced any evidence. There is no serious dispute that the defendant No.3 is also one of the co-owners of the property and he is the brother of plaintiffs 1 and 2. In the original written statement, the defendants 1 & 2 did not take up a stand that the suit is not maintainable for want of consent by other co-owner. There is no serious dispute that the defendant No.3 is also one of the co-owners of the property and he is the brother of plaintiffs 1 and 2. In the original written statement, the defendants 1 & 2 did not take up a stand that the suit is not maintainable for want of consent by other co-owner. Even though the written statement was amended several times, no attempt was made by the defendants 1 and 2 to take such a stand. It is only during the cross-examination of PW-1 for the first time, they sought to contend that the third defendant has not given any consent. In the cross-examination of PW-1, there is no suggestion to him that the plaintiffs are not the landlords. Except some suggestion put to PW-1 in the cross-examination and the assertion on the part of DW-2, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the third defendant has not consented for the plaintiffs to file the suit for eviction of the defendants. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 being co-owners of the schedule premises admittedly having granted lease of the same to defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to file the suit. The consent of the other co-owner is not necessarily required to be in writing, this consent may be implied. It is necessary to note that after defendant No.3 was impleaded as a party to the suit, he did not file any written statement nor examined himself before the Court to assert that he has not given consent to the plaintiffs to file the suit. This in our opinion is sufficient circumstance to indicate that he has impliedly consented for the plaintiffs to file the present suit. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention urged regarding the maintainability of the suit. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the present suit filed only by two of the three co-owners for ejectement of the tenants is maintainable. Hence, we answer Point No.3 in the affirmative. 30. POINT NO.4: There is no dispute that the notice terminating tenancy of the defendants was issued to the defendants by registered post and the same has been issued as per Ex P1 and the same has been served on the defendants 1 and 2 as per the postal acknowledgment-Ex P2 & P3. 31. Admittedly, the defendants have not replied the same. 31. Admittedly, the defendants have not replied the same. In this notice, the tenancy of the defendants 1 and 2 has been terminated on the expiry of 30.9.2001. The notice has been received by the defendants on 5.9.2001. The suit came to be filed on 2.11.2001. Thus, clear 15 days notice has been given to the defendants 1 and 2 regarding termination of tenancy. No doubt, the termination of tenancy was on the ground that, the defendants have not paid monthly rents from the inception of tenancy i.e., from 1.4.2000 and as on 30.8.2001, the defendants 1 and 2 were in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/-. However, it is the defence of defendants 1 and 2 that they have paid rents regularly and they were not in arrears of rent. As noticed above, the defendants inspite of receipt of said notice have not replied the same. Thus, at the earliest point of time, when it was alleged that the defendants 1 and 2 are in arrears of rent of Rs.4,25,000/-, they have not denied the same and by their silence, they have admitted the said fact. In the said notice, Ex P1 it was further stated that the defendants issued two cheques one for Rs.1,25,000/-dated 11.3.2001 and another for Rs.1,50,000/-dated 23.6.2001 towards arrears of rent, but both of them were dishonoured when presented for encashment. The said allegation was also not controverted as no reply was issued by defendants 1 and 2. However, in their written statement, defendants 1 and 2 have contended that they have paid rents upto June 2001 regularly and since the plaintiffs refused to receive the subsequent rents, they filed petition under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in H.R.C.No.483/2001 and deposited rents therein, as such, they are not in arrears of rent. They have denied the allegation that the two cheques issued for Rs.1,25,000/-and Rs.1,50,000/-have been dishonoured. They further contended that the plaintiffs have received Rs.8 lakhs as advance in cash, which they have acknowledged in the lease deed by making endorsement. With regard to the alleged payment of Rs.8 lakhs in cash, in the Court below, the defendants did not produce any documentary evidence. However, before this Court they sought to produce the unregistered lease deed as additional evidence. With regard to the alleged payment of Rs.8 lakhs in cash, in the Court below, the defendants did not produce any documentary evidence. However, before this Court they sought to produce the unregistered lease deed as additional evidence. However, as held earlier, the defendants have not made out any grounds for production of additional evidence in the appellate Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence placed by the defendants to substantiate their contention that they had paid Rs.8 lakhs as advance. No doubt, PW-1 during the cross-examination has admitted that an advance to a tune of Rs.8 lakhs was paid. But according to him, it was paid by means of a cheque. Ex P11 is the cheque dated 23.6.2001 issued in favour of PW-1 for Rs.8 lakhs. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that the defendants, who had also agreed to pay Rs.8 lakhs, issued a post-dated cheque on the date of the inception of the tenancy and the said cheque also been bounced on the ground of "Insufficient Funds". There is absolutely no cross-examination to PW-1 in this regard. DW-2 in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit has merely stated that the Lessors have received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs at the time of execution of the lease deed towards deposit and the same was agreed to be repaid at the time of termination of the lease. In his entire examination-in-chief, it is not stated that the sum of Rs.8 lakhs was paid in cash and an endorsement was made to that effect in the lease deed. It is not the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that in lieu of the post-dated cheque issued by them for Rs.8 lakhs, they paid Rs.8 lakhs in cash to the plaintiffs. In the cross-examination, DW-2 has stated as follows:- "We have shown in our income tax returns, the payment of advance amount of Rs.8 lakhs to the 1st plaintiff through case. We have no objection to produce those income tax returns in this suit. The payment of Rs.8 lakhs by cash to the plaintiff which is stated above was made to him subsequent to the date of cheque which is 23.6.2001at Ex P11. We have no objection to produce those income tax returns in this suit. The payment of Rs.8 lakhs by cash to the plaintiff which is stated above was made to him subsequent to the date of cheque which is 23.6.2001at Ex P11. I once again say that the cash amount of Rs.8 lakhs as advance was paid to the plaintiff on the date of the lease deed i.e., 1.4.2000." Further, it is elicited in the cross-examination as follows:- "Qn: According to you on 1.4.2000 itself, you had paid advance of Rs.8 lakhs to the plaintiff by cash, but what made you to issue a cheque for the same amount on 23.6.2001 as per Ex P11? Ans: (Witness takes a long pause and the question was put to him twice). Actually, the possession of the property was given to us in the beginning to enable us to start our work. However, the agreement was made on a subsequent day by putting a previous date. Qn: I put it to you that the cheque for Rs.8 lakhs at Ex P11 was issued by you to the plaintiff No.1 towards the advance amount for suit property. What do you say? Ans: The plaintiff had taken this cheque for his safety while delivering the possession of the property to us. Qn: You have not answered to the above question specifically. Therefore, I ask you the same question again. (The above question was repeated again). What do you say? Ans: The said cheque at Ex P11 was paid towards the advance amount of the lease premises, which is the suit property. The 1st plaintiff was a good friend of 1st defendant. As such it was given." 32. From the above answers elicited in the cross-examination, it is clear that Ex P11 is the cheque issued towards advance amount and the same has been dishonoured. Though DW-2 states that in their income tax returns, they have mentioned payment of Rs.8 lakhs in cash and though he has no objection to produce the copy of the income tax returns, he has not produced the same before the Court. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. If according to DW-2, Rs.8 lakhs was paid in cash as advance on the date of the lease deed itself, we do not see any reason as to why they issued a post-dated cheque as per Ex P11. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. If according to DW-2, Rs.8 lakhs was paid in cash as advance on the date of the lease deed itself, we do not see any reason as to why they issued a post-dated cheque as per Ex P11. The explanation sought to be given by DW-2 that the plaintiff had taken the said cheque for safety while delivering the possession of the property to them cannot be accepted, as defendants have not pleaded anything in this regard in their written statement nor any suggestions was put to PW-1 during the cross-examination. Therefore, the contention of the defendants 1 and 2 that they have paid Rs.8 lakhs in cash as advance to the plaintiff has not been established as such the Court below was right in rejecting the said contention. According to PW-1, the cheques for Rs.1,25,000/-and Rs.1,50,000/-issued by the defendants towards the arrears of rent have been dishonoured. Ex P6 is the cheque for Rs.1,50,000/-and Ex P8 is the cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-. As could be seen from the Banker's endorsement at Ex P7 and Ex P9, these two cheques have been dishonoured when presented for encashment as there was no sufficient funds in the account of the drawer of the cheques. PW-1 has asserted his fact in his examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination of PW-1, the defendants have gone to the extent of suggesting to PW-1 that defendant No.2 has not issued those cheques and PW-1 has misused these two cheques. However, contrary to the said suggestion, they have also made further suggestion that in lieu of cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-, second defendant has paid cash of Rs.1,25,000/-and has obtained a receipt and inspite of receipt of the amount in cash, he (PW-1) failed to return the cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-. However, surprisingly, DW-2 in his examination-in-chief does not make any reference to these two cheques. During the cross-examination, he admits that the cheque-Ex P8 was issued by him towards arrears of rent. The answer reads thus:- "It is true that our tenancy in the suit schedule premises has commenced with effect from and as on date from 1.4.2000. Now I am shown a cheque at Ex P8. This cheque was issued by me. It is true that the said cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-was issued towards arrears of rent." 33. The answer reads thus:- "It is true that our tenancy in the suit schedule premises has commenced with effect from and as on date from 1.4.2000. Now I am shown a cheque at Ex P8. This cheque was issued by me. It is true that the said cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-was issued towards arrears of rent." 33. With regard to the cheque-Ex P6 for Rs.1,50,000/-though he admits that he had issued the said cheque, according to him that was issued towards the good will. DW-2 gone on saying that in addition to advance of Rs.8 lakhs, they also paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the plaintiffs as good will but there is no document to show the payment of the good will. He admits that they have not informed their Counsel about payment of Rs.6 lakhs to the plaintiff as good will. According to him, the good will of Rs.6 lakhs was paid in two installments of Rs.3 lakhs each. The first instalment of Rs.3 lakhs was paid prior to the date of Ex P6 and the remaining Rs.3 lakhs was paid subsequent to the cheque-Ex P6. According to him, the cheque-Ex P6 was paid as safety to the plaintiff when Rs.3 lakhs good will in the second instalment was still payable. These explanations given by DW-2 during the cross-examination cannot be accepted for the reason that there is absolutely no pleading to this effect nor this case was put to PW-1 when he was in the witness box. According to DW-2, Ex D1 is the office copy of the reply notice sent on his behalf to the plaintiffs, as reply to the notice dated 30.7.2001 marked as Ex P12. In Ex P12, there is a specific allegation that cheque for Rs.1,50,000/-dated 23.6.2001 was issued towards the arrears of rent. The said allegation has been denied in Ex D1, In Ex D1, the issuance of the said cheque itself has been denied. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of Ex D1, it is stated thus:- "4. The allegations in the notice that our client has issued the cheque bearing No.6837 dated 23.6.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-drawn on M/s. Karavali Credit Co-operative Society Ltd, Bangalore is false and frivolous. There is no occasion for our client to issue the cheque since the rentals for the alleged period was already paid. 5. The allegations in the notice that our client has issued the cheque bearing No.6837 dated 23.6.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-drawn on M/s. Karavali Credit Co-operative Society Ltd, Bangalore is false and frivolous. There is no occasion for our client to issue the cheque since the rentals for the alleged period was already paid. 5. Our client represents to us that your client being the landlord in respect of the premises wherein our client is running the restaurant, he had free access to the premises. From the premises, it was noticed that the cheque book and pass book pertaining to the account in question is missing. Subsequently, our client has also notified the bank in this regard. It appears your client has unauthorisedly taken custody of the cheque and misused the same. Our client will initiate appropriate action against your client since he has committed a clear offence of theft, cheating and misappropriation. He has further utilised the materials to intimidate our client." 34. However, during the cross-examination, DW-2 goes to the extent of saying that reply notice-Ex D1 was not issued at his instance, but, the said notice was issued at the instance of first defendant. When the witness was asked to read the contents of Ex D1, he expressed his inability to read the contents without the spectacles and therefore the contents of Ex D1 and P12 were read over to the witness and was translated to him even in Kannada language also. After reading out the contents of Ex P12 and Ex D1, the witness was asked as to whether the contents of para 5 of Ex D1 are correct or his evidence before the Court was correct? To this question, the witness has answered that the contents of notice at Ex D1 are correct. Thus, the whole evidence of DW-2 that the cheque at Ex P6 was issued as security towards goodwill has been completely given a goby. 35. According to DW-2, Ex D7 is the receipt issued by PW-1 for having received Rs.1,25,000/-in cash in lieu of the cheque-Ex P8. The Court below has dis-believed Ex D7 and the evidence of DW-2 in this behalf. It is pertinent to note that though in Ex P12, there is a specific allegation that the cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-issued towards the arrears of rent has been dishonoured, in reply notice-Ex D1, there is no denial of the said fact. The Court below has dis-believed Ex D7 and the evidence of DW-2 in this behalf. It is pertinent to note that though in Ex P12, there is a specific allegation that the cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-issued towards the arrears of rent has been dishonoured, in reply notice-Ex D1, there is no denial of the said fact. On the other hand, in para 5 of Ex D1, which is extracted earlier, defendants went to the extent of accusing the plaintiff of committing theft of the Cheque Book. In the written statement, the defendants have not contended that in lieu of the cheque for Rs.1,25,000/-cash was paid, it was acknowledged and a receipt to that effect has been issued. When PW-1 was in the witness box, this Ex D7 has not been confronted to him. The least a defendant to do during the cross-examination of opposite party is to put his case to the witness. Having regard to the fact that during the cross-examination of PW1, Ex D7 has not been confronted and in the absence of any pleading to that effect and in the light of the contents of Ex D1, in our considered view, the Court below has rightly rejected Ex D7. We see no ground to accept the evidence of DW-2 in this regard. In the light of the statements made in para 3 of Ex D1 that the rents between 1.9.2000 upto the end of February 2001 was already paid, a question was put to DW-2 as to whether they have any records to show that the rents from 1.4.2000 to 31.8.2000 has been paid. To this question, the witness has stated that the receipt for Rs.1,25,000/-as per Ex D7 is for the payment of rents between 1.4.2000 to 31.8.2000. Whereas, according to the contents of Ex D7 with the said payment, rent upto February 2001 was cleared. DW-1 in categorical terms admits that they have no records to show that rents from 1.9.2000 to the end of February 2001 has been paid to the plaintiff. In the light of this admission of DW-2 that there are no records to show the payment of rents from 1.9.2000 upto the end of February 2001, another question was put to him that since they had not paid the rents for the said period, they do not have any records in that regard. In the light of this admission of DW-2 that there are no records to show the payment of rents from 1.9.2000 upto the end of February 2001, another question was put to him that since they had not paid the rents for the said period, they do not have any records in that regard. To this question the witness has answered stating that they have paid the rents in cash. Thus, there is absolutely no acceptable evidence placed by the defendants that they have paid the rents from 1.4.2000 upto the end of June 2001. It is the further defence of the defendants 1 and 2 that since the rents for the period subsequent to June 2001 was not received by the plaintiffs when sent by money order, they filed petition under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in H.R.C.No.483/2001 and they deposited the subsequent rents in the Court and the plaintiffs are having the knowledge of this fact. DW-2 has asserted this fact in his evidence. In support of this, the defendants have produced Ex D4 to D6 being the challans, acknowledgment for having deposited certain amount in Reserve Bank of India. 36. Perusal of EX D4 to Ex D6 shows the name of the depositor as one B.C. Venkatesh. From the records it is not forthcoming as to who is this B.C. Venkatesh and how he is related to the defendants. Apparently, Ex D4 to D6 also do not indicate that the amounts deposited with the Reserve Bank of India was in connection with HRC No.483/2001. Therefore, Ex D4 to Ex D6 cannot be accepted as evidence for having deposited the rents by the defendants in the Court. Certified copy of the order sheet in HRC No.483/2001 are available in the records and from the said certified copy, it is noticed that the Court concerned has not granted permission to the petitioners therein for depositing the arrears of rent. Infact, the said petition appears to have been filed by Vinayaka Enterprises and not by defendants 1 & 2. Ultimately, the said petition has been closed as abated in terms of Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Thus, there is absolutely no convincing and acceptable evidence to show that the defendants have deposited the rents in Court. Infact, the said petition appears to have been filed by Vinayaka Enterprises and not by defendants 1 & 2. Ultimately, the said petition has been closed as abated in terms of Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Thus, there is absolutely no convincing and acceptable evidence to show that the defendants have deposited the rents in Court. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the defendants have not proved that they have paid the arrears of rents from 1.4.2000 upto the end of August 2001 as stated in the notice at Ex P1. The defendants had utterly failed to prove that they have paid advance of Rs.8 lakhs as contended by them. Assuming for the purpose of agreement that the defendants had paid Rs.8 lakhs as advance, even according to DW-2 that was intended to be held by the lessors till redelivery of possession of the property by the tenants. Therefore, it is not open to the defendants to contend that as they have paid Rs.8 lakhs, they were not in arrears of rent. They have also utterly failed to prove that they have deposited the subsequent rents in Court. 37. In these circumstances, there is no difficulty in holding that the defendants were in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/-as on 1.9.2001. Though, it is the contention of defendants 1 and 2 that the lease granted was for 10 years from 1.4.2000, as such, the plaintiffs have no right to terminate the tenancy, they have not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate this contention. Lease of immovable property for the period exceeding 11 months should be by written instrument and it is compulsorily registerable document. Admittedly, there is no registered lease deed between the parties evidencing lease of schedule property for 10 years. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention. Even otherwise, the defendants 1 & 2 having failed to pay the monthly rents from the inception of tenancy, have rendered themselves liable for eviction. Therefore, the notice of termination issued is in accordance with law and thus, the tenancy of the defendants has been duly terminated in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court below in our opinion has rightly held that the defendants are liable for eviction. Therefore, the notice of termination issued is in accordance with law and thus, the tenancy of the defendants has been duly terminated in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court below in our opinion has rightly held that the defendants are liable for eviction. We see no error committed by the Court below in holding that the tenancy of the defendants 1 and 2 has been properly terminated and they are liable to be evicted from the schedule premises. We see no ground to interfere with the finding of the Court below, as such there are no merits in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. We answer Point Nos.4 and 5 accordingly. 38. Accordingly, appeal filed by the defendants 1 and 2 is hereby dismissed. However, defendants 1 and 2 are granted 3 months' time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs. The amount, if any, in deposit in this appeal is ordered to be paid to the plaintiff/respondents.