JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S. Serto, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging order dated 21.03.2007, of Court of Civil Judge, Dhubri, wherein, learned Civil Judge disposed two Misc. (J) cases being No. 271 /2004, and 272/2007. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also heard learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. Brief facts which led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are stated here below ;- That petitioner by purportedly executing an agreement dated 02.01.1984, became a tenant of one Biresh Chandra Poddar, defendant No.2, in original Title Suit No. 234/1989, and proforma respondent in Title Appeal No. 27/2006, in respect of a portion of a house standing in a plot of land measuring 3K 11L, covered by Khatian No.39 and Dag No. 114 & 115, situated at Bidyapara Part Dhubri Town, Dhubri District. And while continuing as such, a suit being No. 234/1989 was instituted in Court of Munsif, Dhubri by respondents, who are sisters of Mr. Biresh Chandra Poddar, defendant No. 2 in original title suit, and proforma respondent in appeal, praying for eviction of defendant No. 1, present petitioner. The suit was decreed in favour of present respondents on 25.04.2006. Not satisfied with judgment and decree, petitioner herein filed an appeal before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhubri on 02.06.2006. And while appeal was pending petitioner filed two applications, one under Order 13, Rule 10 and other under Order 41, Rule 27 praying for calling of records of three title suit cases viz. T.S. No. 5/2002, T.S. No. 19/1987 and T.S. No. 136/2000, pending before other Courts and also to allow him to lead additional evidence to show that respondent No. 4 and proforma defendant, one of owners of land, Shri Biresh Chandra Poddar has expired during pendency of original suit before trial court, respectively. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) took up two applications and disposed them by a common order dated 21.03.2004, which is impugned herein. Being aggrieved, petitioner has come to this Court praying for setting aside impugned order. 3. Case of petitioner as submitted by learned counsel is as follows: That since decree passed by trial court was after death of one of plaintiffs. i.e., plaintiff No. 4/respondent No. 4 and, defendant No. 2/proforma respondent, decree is non est. Being aggrieved, petitioner has come to this Court praying for setting aside impugned order. 3. Case of petitioner as submitted by learned counsel is as follows: That since decree passed by trial court was after death of one of plaintiffs. i.e., plaintiff No. 4/respondent No. 4 and, defendant No. 2/proforma respondent, decree is non est. Therefore, in order to bring these facts into record of appeal he prayed for calling of records of said three title suits pending before other Courts and also to file additional evidence in support of his case. These two applications, however, were dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), without considering fact that such evidence if brought on record will have a significant bearing on outcome of appeal. That legal heirs of Biresh Chandra Poddar are necessary parties in title suit and unless they are brought in as parties no effective order or decree can be passed in respect of suit land. Since this fact was not taken in consideration by learned Civil judge (Sr. Div.) while passing impugned order he has committed error in law. In support of his submission, learned counsel submitted judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad & Anr., v. Khirodhar Mahto & Ors., reported in (1994) Suppl. (3) SCC 314 and in case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 . 4. In reply, learned counsel for respondents submitted as follows : That petitioner became one of tenants in property which belongs to respondents and their brother Biresh Chandra Poddar who was impleaded as defendant No.2 in original suit and proforma respondent in appeal. petitioner stopped paying rent of house he was occupying; therefore, a suit for eviction was intended to be filed against him. While preparation for same was going on Biresh Chandra Poddar being one of co-owners was asked to join suit but he declined to take part in suit, therefore, he was impleaded as one of defendants in said original suit. And, therefore, summon was issued to him but he did not appear. As such, court proceeded ex-parte in his case. Under such facts and circumstances, there was no need of bringing into record or producing additional evidence regarding his death, submitted learned counsel. And, therefore, summon was issued to him but he did not appear. As such, court proceeded ex-parte in his case. Under such facts and circumstances, there was no need of bringing into record or producing additional evidence regarding his death, submitted learned counsel. The learned counsel also submitted that as regards to death of respondent No. 4, who was one of plaintiffs in title suit. Non-impleadment of her legal heirs will not vitiate outcome of pending appeal as original suit was for eviction only. learned counsel further submitted that in an eviction case one of owners or any of co-owners can file a suit for eviction and there is no necessity of showing that he had taken option or consent of other co-owners. In conclusion, learned counsel submitted that this petition is nothing but a play to delay process of eviction, therefore, is abuse of Court's process. learned counsel cited case of Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 724 . relevant para-10 and 11 are reproduced herein below:- "10. This question now stands concluded by a decision of this Court in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 178 , wherein this Court opined : "Having heard learned counsel for parties we are satisfied that appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one of co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in property generally owned by co-owners. (See Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, (1976) 4 SCC 184 and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16 ) This principle is based on doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of other co-owners. consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that other co-owners were not agreeable to eject tenant and suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. In present case, suit was filed by both co-owners. One of co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway suit so as to prejudice other co-owner. consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that other co-owners were not agreeable to eject tenant and suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. In present case, suit was filed by both co-owners. One of co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway suit so as to prejudice other co-owner. suit once filed, rights of parties stand crystallised on date of suit and entitlement of co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to date of institution of suit; only exception being when by virtue of a subsequent event entitlement of body of co-owners to eject tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation of law." 11. A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is maintainable in law. It is not necessary for co-owner to show before initiating eviction proceedings before Rent Controller that he had taken option or consent of other co-owners. However, in event, a co-owner objects thereto, same may be a relevant fact. In instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that co-owners of respondent had objected to eviction proceedings initiated by respondent herein. submission of learned counsel for appellant to effect that before initiating proceedings, appellant was required to show that he had experience in running business in Ayurvedic medicine, has to be stated to be rejected. There is no law which provides for such a pre-condition. It may be so where a licence is required for running a business, a statute may prescribe certain qualifications or preconditions without fulfilment whereof landlord may not be able to start a business, but for running a wholesale business in Ayurvedic medicine, no qualification is prescribed. Experience in business is not a pre-condition under any statute. Even no experience therefore may be necessary. If respondent has proved his bona fide requirement to evict appellant herein for his own purpose, this Court may not, unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb finding of fact arrived at by Appellate Authority and affirmed by High Court." 5. I have gone through entire record of suit that was before trial court and before appellate court. It is seen from judgment and decree of trial court that summon was sent to Sri Biresh Chandra Poddar, and he did not appear in spite of receiving same, and case proceeded ex-parte against him only thereafter, (vide order dated 17.11.2000, passed by trial court). It is seen from judgment and decree of trial court that summon was sent to Sri Biresh Chandra Poddar, and he did not appear in spite of receiving same, and case proceeded ex-parte against him only thereafter, (vide order dated 17.11.2000, passed by trial court). Therefore, petitioner's prayer before first appellate court to produce evidence on death of Biresh Chandra Poddar was uncalled for. Because, by producing such evidence, it will not in any way change outcome of appeal, as case before trial court had proceeded ex-parte against him. As regards to death of respondent No. 4, there is no dispute that she was one of co-owners of property from which petitioner's eviction was sought for and for which whole process of litigation was put on motion. In such petition for eviction, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents and supported by judgment submitted, there is no need for other co-owners to implead or to bring into record her legal heirs. In view of what has been stated above, this court finds no legal infirmity or rhyme or reason to interfere in order passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) i.e. impugned order. Considering reasons and keeping in view facts and circumstances, submitted by both parties, this petition appears to be more of a delaying tactic on part of petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not appreciate same. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Send back Lower Court records. learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) on receipt of records should make all endeavours to dispose appeal, at earliest, keeping in view of fact that litigation has been stretching on for long since 1989. No order as to cost.