Judgment Case ID: 6056

Judgment:
ivil Appeal No. 3342 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Civil Appeal No. 300 of 1975. O.P. Rana and Raju Ramachandran for the Appellant. Vivek Ghambir and Praveen Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK	 CJ. This is a landlord 's appeal by special leave arising out of a suit for ejectment. The respondent 's father B.M. Paul	 was the tenant of the premises in question. On his death he left behind the re spondent	 his mother	 brothers and sisters who in herited the tenancy. A notice under section 106 of the terminating the tenancy was addressed to the respondent and was served on him. It was not addressed and served on the other tenants. A suit for ejectment was filed by the appellant against the respondent. The validity of the notice to quit was challenged by the respondent. It was contended that notice should have been addressed to all the members of the family and served on them	 and in the absence of notice to all the suit was incompetent. The trial court upheld the validity of the notice relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shrimati Vishnawati vs Bhag wat Vithu Chowdhry	 on the footing that the defendants were joint tenants and constituted a single unit and therefore notice to one of the defendants was sufficient to determine the tenancy. The view proceeded on the basis that the heirs of the original tenant held the tenancy as joint tenants. When the matter ultimately came to the High Court in second appeal	 the High Court took the view that as heirs of the deceased tenant they held the tenancy as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. Accordingly	 the High Court said	 notice to quit should have been served on each one of the successor tenants. In that view	 the High Court allowed the appeal and 771 dismissed the suit. The High Court relied on Ramesh Chand Bose vs Gopeshwar Prasad Sharrna	 AIR 1977 'Allahabad 38 where it was held that a tenancy was a heritable property right and the heirs of the deceased tenant became tenants themselves. In this appeal the entire question is whether the notice addressed to the respondent alone is a valid notice. 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 division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor. 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 ten ants	 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 us that the view taken in Ramesh Chand Bose (supra) is erroneous where the High Court lays down that the heirs of the deceased tenant succeed as tenants in common. In our opinion	 the notice under section 106 of the served by the appellant on the respondent is a valid notice and therefore the suit must succeed. In the result	 the appeal is allowed	 the judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are restored. There is no order as to costs. P.S.S. Appeal allowed.

Summary:
The respondent inherited tenancy of the demised premises alongwith his mother	 brothers and sisters from their fa ther. A notice under section 106 of the terminating the tenancy was served on him. It was followed by a suit for ejectment against him. Upholding the validity of the said notice	 the trial court took the view that the heirs of the original tenant held the tenancy as joint tenants and	 therefore	 notice to one of the defendants was sufficient to determine the tenan cy. Allowing the appeal therefrom	 the 'High Court took the view that as heirs of the deceased tenant they held the tenancy as tenants incommon and not as joint tenants. There fore	 the notice to quit should have been served on each one of the successor tenants. Allowing the appeal by special leave	 the Court	 HELD: The notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Proper ty Act served by the appellant on the respondent was a valid notice. [771E] On the death of the original tenant	 subject to any provi sion 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 division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor. The heirs thus succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. [771C] In the instant case	 the respondent acted on behalf of the tenants	 he paid rent on behalf of all and accepted notice also on behalf of all. In the circumstances	 the notice served on the respondent was sufficient. The suit must	 therefore	 succeed. [771D] 770 Shrimati Vishnawati vs Bhagwat. Vithu Chowdhry	 	 affirmed. Ramesh Chand Bose vs Gopeshwar Prasad Sharma	 AIR 1977 Allahabad 38	 overruled.