Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. On filing of PF by the petitioner, issue notice for service upon the respondents informing him of this order. Copy of this order be sent with notice. Notice and copy of the order be served by way of affixation at the tenanted premises. Endorsement to this effect be made on the notice. Further, since during the course of the proceedings, respondent no. 3 had expired but no steps were taken to implead his legal representatives, it was observed that proceedings qua him stand abated vide order dated 25.01.2024. However, as per the case of the respondents themselves, respondent no. 3 /proprietor of firm Mittal Caterers is the son of original tenant Baij Nath. 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 tenant. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed 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 thereof. 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. Reliance in this regard is placed upon H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 and Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain & Anr, AIR 2018 SC 2708. Therefore, even if the LRs of the respondent no. 3 have not been impleaded, his interest in the tenancy continued to be represented through his brother / respondent no.1 who is also a joint tenant in the premises. Therefore, the successors of the respondent no. 3 would also be bound by the present proceedings even though they have not been impleaded by the petitioner on the demise of the respondent no. 3.