Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.16 seconds)Section 48 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 6 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain on 19 April, 2018
As regards question no.1, it is well settled that the tenancy is
one and the tenancy does not get divided on the death of the tenant.
Tenancy, no doubt, is heritable but the heirs inherit the tenancy as joint
tenants and cannot claim any independent right in any part of the tenanted
premises. Same analogy can be drawn in the case of tenancy in favour of
partnership firm. Once the partnership firm stands dissolved, the
partnership firm has ceased to exist and hence the erstwhile partners become
joint tenants and not tenants in common. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain and another, (2018) 6
SCC 708 had occasion to deal with the issue as to what would be the status
of the succeeding legal representatives after the death of a statutory tenant.
The court went on to hold that the legal heirs would be joint tenants and not
tenants in common. In these circumstances, it is to be examined that what
are the individual rights of one of the ex-partner in case when the tenancy
was in favour of partnership firm. Analogy as rightly contended by learned
counsel for the appellants is required to be drawn that an ex-partner does
not have any individual right in the tenanted premises. All the ex-partners
can, at the most, claim to be joint tenants.
1