Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
"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 was served on the respondent was sufficient."
In a recent decision in Ashok Chintaman hiker v. Kishore Pandurang Mantri, (2001) 5 SCC 1 Apex Court examined the question in connection with the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. The Court reiterated the legal position and held that 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 Court held it is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs.
8. We may examine the provisions of our Rent Control Act on the basis of the above mentioned principles. The word tenant is defined under Section 2(6) of the Act which reads as follows:
" "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes:-
(i) the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant, and
(ii).....".
It is evident from the above mentioned definition that on the death of original tenant, tenancy rights devolve on his heirs as joint tenants, unless there is a provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. It is a single tenancy. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable thereafter and 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. Once it is held that the tenancy was joint, a notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient and the suit for same reason is also good. Unless and until there is evidence of disruption of the tenancy or division of premises or in the matter of payment of separate rent, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. In this case as we have already indicated notice to one of the tenants is valid and the Rent Control Petition impleading one of them is maintainable and order of eviction passed in such a case is binding on all the tenants. Assuming that the heirs of the deceased have got any interest in the tenanted premises determination of the question whether tenancy is joint or separate actually depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No inflexible rule or straitjacket formula can be laid down for that purpose.
9. We are in this case convicted on facts that it was Mary who was conducting business on the death of the husband for and on behalf of all others. It was Mary, who was paying rent. Sales tax registration is also in the name of Mary. On facts also we have convinced that Mary was conducting the business on behalf of her family and consequently non-impleadment of the children of Mary is no consequence. Objection raised with regard to the non-maintainability of the petition is rejected. We have indicated that on the death of the original tenant tenancy rights devolved on the heirs as joint tenants and it is a single tenancy. Consequently Rent Control Petition filed against one of the heirs could be maintainable and the order passed is binding on them. In the above mentioned facts we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.