C.R. No. 3111 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3111 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.07.2010 Janak Dulari .... Petitioner Versus Subhash Kumar ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) The present petition is filed by the tenant challenging the judgments passed by Rent Controller dated 1.10.2004 as well as Appellate Authority dated 28.2.2009. Both the Courts below have directed eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petitioner as well as dilapidated condition and unfit for human inhabitation condition of the building in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised sole argument to the effect that initially Rose White Dry Cleaner through its sole proprietor Inder Mohan was tenant of the property. Hence, after the death of Inder Mohan, firm should have been impleaded as one of the defendant. His alternate argument is that if Inder Mohan C.R. No. 3111 of 2009 2 treated to be tenant then after death his all legal heirs who have inherited as joint tenant should have been impleaded and eviction petition against widow of Inder Mohan who is one of the legal heir is not maintainable in the absence of other LRs of Inder Mohan. I have given my serious thoughts to the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner. The proprietorship firm is not the legal entity, it is the proprietor who is the legal entity, hence, tenancy was infact in favour of Inder Mohan, the sole proprietor of the firm and on the death of Inder Mohan he left Janak Dulai his widow and two sons namely Rakesh Kumar and Sushil Kumar. Undisputedly, petition for eviction was filed impleading Janak Dulari as defendant in the petition. Both the sons of Inder Mohan have not been impleaded. Now question arises before this Court as to whether after the death of original tenant, his tenants become joint tenants or they get the right of tenants in common? It is settled position of law that after the death of sole tenant his legal heirs inherits right of tenancy as joint tenants. Now question comes as to whether petition for eviction is maintainable impleading one of the joint tenant or all the joint tenants should have been impleaded to maintain the petition of eviction? Hon'ble Apex in the matter of Ashok Chintaman Juker vs. Kishore Pandurang Mantri, 2001(1) RCR 581 in paragraph No. 11 has held as under:- “11. The question that arises for consideration in such cases is whether the tenancy is joint or separate. In the former case notice on any one of the tenants is valid and a suit impleading one of them as a defendant is maintainable. A decree passed in such a suit is being on C.R. No. 3111 of 2009 3 all the tenants. Determination of the question depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. No inflexible rule or strait-jacket formula can be laid down for the purpose. Therefore, the case in hand is to be decided in the facts and circumstances thereof.” As per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court eviction petition against one of the joint tenant without impleading other joint tenants is maintainable and decree passed therein would be having binding effect against all the tenants. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the petition. Petition is devoid of merit, hence is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises in question. He further states that petitioner shall furnish usual undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2010. In view of the above, petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted till 31.12.2010 on furnishing usual undertaking before the Rent Controller within two months from today. It is made clear that in the event of failure of the tenant- petitioner for furnishing undertaking, the order shall be executed forthwith. (ALOK SINGH) 02.07.2010 JUDGE reena