Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Since all the relevant documents have been looked into and finding of fact have been recorded by the Tribunal, I do not find any glaring mistake in the orders of the Tribunals calling for interference by this court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The material produced by the petitioner could show them to be working in the suit premises.

Now, the question remains as to what is the effect of the rent note. It extends to the successor of erstwhile tenant Chaturbhuj Agrawal. In view of the rent note, petitioners' claim remains as successor. At the first instance, it would be relevant to mention here that Chaturbhuj Agrawal died in the year 1996 whereas application for eviction was made in the year 2003 i.e., after seven years of his death. In between seven years, if rent became payable on behalf of one under a contract expressed or implied, then he becomes landlord. Accordingly, intervening period can change the position then existing under the earlier rent note. It is, however, presumed that the petitioners being successors of Chaturbhuj Agrawal are to be considered as co-tenants, then whether non-impleadment as a party respondents has any effect. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are residing in the same premises in which Mahendra Kumar Agrawal resides and against whom decree of eviction has been passed. In the aforesaid background and in the light of the lease deed, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HC Pandey Vs GC Paul reported in (1989) 3 SCC 77 has to be considered first. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that on the death of original tenant, if nothing contrary provided, tenancy right devolve on the heirs and if it is a case of single tenancy without division of the premises or rent payable thereon, heirs succeed to be joint tenant. Para 4 of the aforesaid judgment, it is quoted thus:-

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 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 (supra) is erroneous where the High Court lays down that the heirs of the deceased tenant succeed as tenants in common. In our opinion, the notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served by the appellant on the respondent is a valid notice and therefore the suit must succeed.