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 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 therefore. 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 use that the view taken in Ramesh Chand Bose is erroneous where the High Court lays down that the heirs of the deceased tenant succeed as .
tenant in common. In our opinion, the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served by the appellant on the respondent is a valid notice and therefore, the suit must succeed."

8. A perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court clearly shows that it is a single tenancy which devolves upon the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable thereof. Applying the ratio of the said case to the present petition it is clear that the brothers acted on behalf of all the tenants and contested the petition on behalf of the entire body of the tenants. They represented the estate of the deceased. After having contested the case till the Apex Court for 12 years and having lost throughout the brothers by subterfuge are now trying to bring forward the sisters to avoid and delay the eviction. The proceedings have been pending for almost 15 years now and the tenants have lost at eve ry stage. It would be a mockery of justice if they are permitted to raise such objections at this stage."

.

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 inherit the property of a deceased tenant under the ordinary law of succession would be entitled to inherit even the right of tenancy after the death of the tenant. This position is amply clear from the fact that even under Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 which prescribes the mode of succession of two or more heirs provides that if two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate they shall take the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants and in-spite of this the Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey's case has observed that the heirs of a deceased tenant succeed to the right of tenancy as joint tenants. The Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey's case has observed as follows:-
"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 .