Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He was an employee of H.P. Irrigation and Public Health Department. He served the department for about 35 years. He retired on 31.1.2005 as Assistant Engineer/SDO from the department. He has falsely alleged that he was working with his father in the premises in question. It is also stated in the reply that when statutory tenancy is inherited by any legal heirs of deceased tenant then it devolves on them as joint tenants and not tenant in common. One legal heir who was in actual physical possession and working in shop duly represented the interest of other joint tenants who were not working in the shop. Since the petitioner was not in control of business being in Government job, he is deemed to have surrendered tenancy right. He was thus not a necessary party. He could not indulge in business being a Government servant. He was present in the court on 23.4.2013 when the statement of his brother was recorded. Tenants in the reply filed to earlier petition before the Rent Controller (7) had admitted the .

8. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Mohd. Usman vs. Mst. Surayya Begum, 1990 (2) RCR 408 has held that decree is binding against all the heirs even obtained against one of the heirs. Learned Single Judge has held as under:

"[5] I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. The provision regarding inheritance of tenancy in respect of Mahomedans and Hindus is not different. The Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand's case has no doubt observed that tenancy right which is inheritable devolves on the heirs under the ordinary law of succession. It only means that only those heirs who would be entitled to .

r"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 there. 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 was 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 tenants in common. In the Transfer of Property Act notice served by the appellant on the respondent is a valid notice and therefore the suit must succeed."