Allahabad High Court
Sat Guru Saran Niwas Trust Thru Sole ... vs Smt. Vijay Jain And Others on 30 January, 2023
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 440 of 2007 Revisionist :- Sat Guru Saran Niwas Trust Thru Sole Trustee And Another Opposite Party :- Smt. Vijay Jain And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- ,Gaurav Sharma,Rishabh Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prem Chand Jain,P.C. Jain Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Rishabh Agarwal, counsel for the revisionist and Shri P.C. Jain, counsel for the opposite parties.
This is a landlord's revision challenging the judgement and order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, District-Agra acting as Small Causes Court in Small Cause Case No. 9 of 2003 (Satguru Saran Niwas Trust and Another Vs. Smt. Vijay Jain and 4 Others) whereby the Small Causes Court has dismissed the aforesaid case on the ground that all the heirs of the original tenant had not been impleaded as defendants in the case.
The dispute in Small Cause Case No. 9 of 2003 relates to Shop No. 5 on the ground floor of Satguru Saran Niwas Agra. One Deep Chand was admittedly the original tenant of the demised premises which is Shop No. 5. Deep Chand had two sons namely Suresh Chand and Susheel Chand and one daughter Smt. Sheela Devi. Smt. Tara Devi was the widow of Deep Chand. Suresh Chand and Susheel Chand pre-deceased Tara Devi who died on 6.12.2002. Thus, after the death of Smt. Tara Devi the tenancy in the demised premises devolved on the heirs of Suresh Chand and Susheel Chand .
S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2003 was instituted against opposite parties who are heirs of Susheel Chand and Suresh Chand. However, it appears that no notice terminating the tenancy in the demised premises was served on Smt. Sheel Devi, the daughter of Deep Chand and the aforesaid Smt. Sheela Devi was also not impleaded as defendant in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2003.
The trial court, i.e., the Small Causes Court dismissed S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2003 on the ground that Smt. Sheela Devi had not been impleaded as a defendant in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2003 even though she was one of the heirs of deceased Deep Chand. Hence the present revision.
For reasons given subsequently, the judgement dated 31.8.2007 of the trial court is contrary to law and liable to be set aside.
After the death of Deep Chand his heirs became joint tenant and not tenants in common. The notice served on one of the tenants was sufficient and it was not necessary that notice should have been served on all the heirs of the deceased Deep Chand or all the heirs of deceased Deep Chand should have been impleaded as defendants in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2003.
There is no allegation that the present defendants do not fully represent the estate of the deceased or there is any collusion between the present defendants and the landlord-revisionist. It is also not the case of the defendants that Smt. Sheela Devi is doing any business from the demised premises.
It was held by the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain & Another, (2018) 6 SCC 708, Shkuntala Vasant Pahadi & Another Vs. Purushottam Vasant Pethe & Others, (2007) 3 SCC 123 and H.C. Pandey Vs. G.C. Paul, (1989) 3 SCC 77 that it is not necessary for the landlord to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant whether they are occupying the property or not and it would be sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property as defendant. In this context paragraph No. 24 of the judgement reported in Suresh Kumar Kohli (Supra) is reproduced below :
"We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey, the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenants is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for the landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail."
(Emphasis added) In view of the aforesaid, the opinion of the trial court as recorded in its order dated 31.8.2007 is apparently contrary to law.
During the course of argument Shri P.C. Jain counsel for the opposite parties opposed the revision on an additional ground arguing that even if the opinion of the trial court on issue No. 2 was wrong, the revision should be dismissed as the opinion of the revisional court on issue No. 1 was also contrary to law.
I am not entering into the merits of the findings by the trial court on issue No. 1. The opposite party-tenant has the right to challenge the findings on issue No. 1 in any revision filed against the final decree decree passed by the trial court if the said decree is passed against the tenant-opposite party.
For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed. The order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, District-Agra is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
The suit was instituted in 2003. In view of the aforesaid, the Small Causes Court is directed to decide S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2003 expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either parties and in any case within a period of six months from today.
Let this order be communicated to the Small Causes Court, District-Agra by the Registrar (Compliance) within one week.
Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Anurag/-