CHET RAM Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel perused the judgments of the Courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from executing the decree for ejectment obtained against brother, defendant No. 2, Dori Lal. The house originally belonged to Srimati Ram Kali, who transferred it to Kishan Lal on 27.11.1962. Kishan Lal transferred the house in favour of Bhagwan Dass by a subsequent sale-deed. Chheda Lal, the father of Chet Ram, plaintiff and defendant No. 2, Dori Lal and one Radhey Lal were original tenants of the accommodation. After some time Radhey Lal abandoned the tenancy and Chheda Lal became exclusive tenant. After the death of Chheda Lal defendant No. 1 Bhagwan Dass filed a suit for eviction against defendant No. 2, Dori Lal, and obtained a decree. The plaintiff's contention was that he also became a tenant on the death of his father Chheda Lal and he was not impleaded in the suit for eviction and so the decree is not liable to be executed against him. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit with the allegations that defendant No. 2 Dori Lal was tenant at the time a suit for eviction was filed and the suit was contested upto the High Court and the decree for eviction was confirmed. He further alleged that the plaintiff lived in the village and carried on cultivation there. The trial Court referred to the definition of tenant given in Section 3(a)(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which provides that in case of residential building such only of his heirs as normally resident with him in the building at the time of his death would be deemed to be tenants. The trial Court referred to the statement of plaintiff which shows that he used to live in village and carry on cultivation. The appellate Court also pointed out that the plaintiff's name was never recorded either in the Assessment Register or in the Voters' List. Both the Courts below have repelled plaintiff's claim that he was also a tenant.

(2.) THE case reported in Chunni Lal and others v. Ram Lakhan, 1985(2) ALR 115 is an authority for the proposition that in a tenancy in common, notice has to be given to all the co-tenants and a notice to only one co-tenant is bad in law. The case of Budh Sen v. Sheel Chandra, 1977 A.W.R. 533, is an authority on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been held that the tenancy rights are heritable and devolve upon all the heirs of the deceased irrespective of the question as to whether some of them are in occupation of the demised premises or not. U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is a special law and the definition of tenant is given in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act and will override the definition of a tenant in the general law, i.e. Transfer of Property Act. Only a person residing with the deceased tenant would be deemed to be a tenant in respect of a residential building. There is no illegality in the finding recorded by the Courts below.

(3.) A copy of the order may be given to the parties on payment of usual charges within 48 hours. Appeal dismissed.