CHUNNI LAL AND ORS Vs. RAM LAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs brought a suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and also for mesne profits from the alleged date of termination of the tenancy of the Defendant-Respondent.

(2.) The Munsif decreed the suit in toto. the first appellate court came to a finding that actually the tenancy started from the time of Ram Lakhan's father and on his death all his heirs will be co-tenants and not joint tenants and as other heirs of Jai Gopal have not been served with a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, nor the other heirs have been impleaded as a party, the suit for ejectment and means profits and damages must fail and it dismissed that part of the claim only upholding the arrears of rent decree.

(3.) The only point that arises for determination in this second appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs is whether the Defendant. Ram Lakhan, is the sole tenant of the premises in suit. I may at the very out set mention that neither any joint tenancy was alleged by the Plaintiffs, nor is there any allegation that Defendant Ram Lakhan is a Karta of any joint Hindu family and represents the interest of others. To be brief I may say that it is neither pleaded, nor urged that it is a case of joint tenancy. What is being urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that Ram Lakhan Defendant, son of Jai Gopal, is the sole tenant of the premises. The Defendant expressly pleaded that he is not the sole tenant. He also mentioned that Jai Gopal left other heirs. Such a plea in defence naturally gave rise to determination (?) notice by the courts below whether Ram Lakhan happened to be the sole tenant or he along with some other family members of Jai Gopal was only a tenant in common. The settled law concerning tenants in common is the notices have to be served upon ail such tenants in common or in any case it has atleast to be addressed to all of them and if that is not done, the notice will be bad and will not terminate the tenancy. Instead of referring to a number of pronouncements, it will be sufficient to refer to the case of Budh Sen v. Sheel Chandra, 1977 AWC 553. There were two earlier single Judge pronouncements of this Court, namely, Smt. Vishna Wati v. Bhagwat Vithu Chouwdhry, 1969 AllLJ 1131 and Smt. Shafiqa v. Maqsood Ahmad Khan,1970 AndhWR 100.