H C PANDEY Vs. G C PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's appeal by special leave arising out of a suit for ejectment.

(2.) The respondent's father B. M. Paul, was the tenant of the premises in question. On his death he left behind the respondent, his mother, brothers ers and sisters who inherited 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 Smt. Vishnawati v. Bhagwat Vithu Chowdhry, 1969 All LJ 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 dismissed the suit. The High Court relied on Ramesh Chand Bose v. Gopeshwar Prasad Sharma, AIR 1977 All 38 where it was held that a tenancy was a heritable property right and the heirs of the deceased tenant became tenants themselves.

(3.) In this appeal the entire question is whether the notice addressed to the respondent alone is a valid notice.