Sona devi vs Ghanshyam Dass and others

J.K. Mathur, J.—This petition is directed against the Judgment dated 3171991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gonda dismissing the appeal against the Judgment of the Prescribed Authority rendered on 5121987.

The facts which were not disputed in this petition were that father of one Hari Ram was a tenant in the property in dispute. After his death, Hari Ram became the tenant. He was missing for a long period of time exceeding seven years and the shop was being run by his widow. He also has three sons. The opposite party No. 1 moved application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the shop was required by him for doing business. The application was contested by the petitioner and the need of the landlord was challenged. One of the pleas which had been raised was that on death of Hari Ram, his wife and sons had become the tenants in the shop and the proceedings having not been filed against the sons, they were bad.

As far as the question of genuine need and comparative hardship is concerned, the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings which are based on material on record. There is no reason to interfere with those findings of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

About the maintainability of the application only against the widow of Hari Ram, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that Hari Ram was survived by his widow and three sons and the tenancy cannot be brought to an end by proceeding against only the widow without giving any notice to the other heirs or impleading them as parties.

This contention also is not tenable. On the death of a tenant, his heirs succeed to his rights as joint tenants and it is a single tenancy which they enjoy together. Any one of those tenants can be validly served with a notice and be sued for eviction binding the remaining joint tenants. For this proposition, I am supported by a decision in H.C. Panday v. C. Paul: 1989 Lucknow Civil Decision 292 in which the Supreme Court held :

"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 tenancyrights 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. This 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 appers 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..."

This High Court also held similarly in Mohd. Qadeer v. Munsif North : 1992 Luck now Civil Decisions 90 in which case relying upon the case of H.C. Pandey (Supra) and Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay : AIR 1963 Supreme Court 468 it held that notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient to terminate the tenancy. In the case of Smt. Anju Sharma v. Suresh Chand Jain and others ''. 1993 Allahabad weekly Cases 123 it was held that the decree passed against one of the joint tenants binds all the other tenants. In that case, the decree had been challenged on the ground that one of the joint tenant had not been impleaded as a party to a suit for eviction. This argument was repelled.

Applying the afore raid principles in the present case also, I find that the proceeding for eviction initiated against only one of the joint tenants, namely, the petitioner, validly terminated the tenancy and effectively decided the question of eviction even when the other persons claiming to be joint tenants were not impleaded. The contention of the petitioner to the contrary is not tenable.

No other point was pressed.

The petition, therefore, does not have any force and is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.