Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the petitioners have inherited the tenancy along with respondents 6 to 8, who are admittedly running the business in the premises in dispute, the eviction order against respondents 6 to 8 will be binding on the petitioners also. For taking this view this Court has taken support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in H. C. Pandey v. G. C. Paul. (1989) 3 SCC 77 : (AIR 1989 SC 1470) wherein it is held in para 4 :-

"It is now well settled that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor. That is the position as between the landlord and the heirs of the deceased-tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. In the present case it appears that the respondent acted on behalf of the tenants, that he paid rent on behalf of all and he accepted notice also on behalf of all. In the circumstances, the notice served on the respondent was sufficient. It seems to us that the view taken in Ramesh Chand Bose (AIR 1977 All 38) is erroneous where the High Court lays down that the heirs of the deceased-tenant succeed as tenant-in-common. In our opinion, the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served by the appellant on the respondent is a valid notice and, therefore, the suit must succeed."