Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. It is not in dispute that the shop had been let out to Ram Babu Sharma, father of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and that he expired on 4th February 1987. The tenancy thereafter devolved on the heirs and legal representatives of Ram Babu Sharma as joint tenants. What is also not in dispute in the present petitions, is that defendant No. 1 Dau Dayal Sharma deposited Rs. 4200/- under Section 20(4) of the Act but this deposit is admittedly short of the entire amount that was required to be deposited.

...
it was rightly said by this Court that after the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolved on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. 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 and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenant.

26. In Kishore Seth v. Satish Chandra Nigam and Ors. 2005(2) ARC 58, this Court also observed:

28. In Smt. Usha Rani v. Prescribed Authority, Roorkee and Ors. 1998(34) ALR 202, this Court also made similar observations:

...The law is now well settled that after the death of original tenant, his heirs/legal representatives become only joint tenants and not tenant-in-common. In this connection reference may be had to the case of Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and Ors. 1995 (25) ALR 184 (SC) wherein it was held by the Apex Court that after the death of the tenant, his heirs/legal representatives become only joint tenants and they do not inherit the tenancy rights as tenants-in-common. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable. The heirs/legal representatives, therefore, succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. The result is that any action of any of the joint tenants binds the others.

29. It is, therefore, clear that after the death of the original tenant, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs jointly and any action of the joint tenant(s) binds the other joint tenant(s) even if they have not been impleaded. There is a presumption in law that a joint tenant represents the interest of all the other joint tenant(s) and a decree against a joint tenant would be binding on all the joint tenants even if they have not been impleaded.

30. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court the inevitable conclusion that follows is that when defendant No. 1 deposited certain amount he did so on behalf of all the joint tenants and the other joint tenants cannot subsequently deposit certain amount and take the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The view taken by the Revisional Court that the defendants would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act as defendant No. 5 had subsequently deposited the amount cannot, therefore, be said to be perverse.