Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. As regards legal preposition enunciated in Gianwati's case (supra) regarding heritability even in case of commercial premises, same is undisputed. However,as regards the plea that on the death of original tenant, his legal heirs became tenant in common, the matter came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey (supra) and it was held that after death of original tenant, his heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants and not tenants in common. This view was reiterated in Harish Tandon (RCT Appeal No.58/11) (Page 13 of 21) (supra) and it was held that after the death of original tenant, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. The incidence of the tenancy is 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 tenants." Referring to Gian Devi Anand (supra), it was held as under :-

Our own High Court in Inder Pal Khanna (supra) observed that it is settled law that on the death of tenant, tenancy devolves upon legal heirs as the joint tenancy. L.Rs are not joint tenants and not tenants in common. Once tenancy is a joint tenancy, notice to one of joint tenant is sufficient to terminate tenancy and suit can not be held to be bad for non joinder of other joint tenants or all legal heirs of deceased Tenant. In that case plea taken that the petitioner was required to be served personally, was not accepted and it was held that where out of many, only one or two LR of deceased tenant are in occupation of premises, an eviction petition by landlord against those who are in occupation of the premises is a valid petition. It is not necessary for the landlord to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant or to implead even those who are not in occupation and possession of the premises. Service to one of the joint tenants has to be considered as service on other joint tenants because in joint tenancy, tenancy remains one. It is not separate tenancy and right of each of the joint tenants is in whole of the premises." Hon'ble High Court relied upon Kanji Manji Vs.Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 468 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where the tenancy was a joint tenancy, notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient and (RCT Appeal No.58/11) (Page 15 of 21) the suit against one of the joint tenants not impleading rest of the tenants was good and the suit can not be dismissed on this ground. The plea of the petitioner that petitioner was separately required to be served personally is therefore, not tenable. The petitioner was not a tenant in common. He had inherited joint tenancy alongwith his brother and other legal heirs. Reliance was also placed on 1990(3) Delhi Lawyers 163 Mohd. Usman Vs. Surrayya Begum where it was observed as under :-

In the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court, there can be no doubt that even if one of the legal heir is not a party to the proceedings for eviction filed by the landlord against the legal heirs of the original tenant, that heir who has been left out cannot later on come forward and agitate his or her right in the tenancy.
Substantially, similar view was taken in Krishna Devi (supra), Tahir Begum (supra), Mitrasen Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra). In view of these authoritative pronouncements, it becomes clear that legal preposition is no longer res integra that after the death of original tenant, tenancy devolves upon all legal heirs as joint tenants and all the legal heirs are not required to be impleaded as respondents. One of the legal heirs is capable to represent the entire estate, unless shown to be in collusion with the landlord.