http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: H.C. PANDEY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G.C. PAUL

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1989

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1470            1989 SCR  (2) 769  1989 SCC  (3)  77        JT 1989 (2)   261  1989 SCALE  (1)1147  CITATOR INFO :  D          1990 SC2053  (4)

ACT:     Transfer of Property Act,  1882: s.  106--Notice  deter- mining tenancy served on co-inheriter--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent inherited tenancy of the demised premises alongwith  his mother, brothers and sisters from  their  fa- ther. A notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property  Act 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 s. 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 v. Bhagwat. Vithu Chowdhry,  [1969]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

A.L.J. 1131, affirmed.     Ramesh  Chand Bose v. Gopeshwar Prasad Sharma, AIR  1977 Allahabad 38, overruled.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil 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 s. 106  of  the  Transfer  of Property  Act 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 v.  Bhag- wat  Vithu Chowdhry, [1969] A.L.J. 1131 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  v.  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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 s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act  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. 772