Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 245 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. Azad Singh

2005-02-10

HEMANT GUPTA

body2005
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 21.08.2003 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby objections filed by the objectors claiming inheritance of tenancy rights was allowed. 2. One Ajit Singh was the tenant in the premises in dispute. After his death in the year 1972, his widow Ravinder Pal Kaur and his son Jaimal Singh carried out business of deceased Ajit Singh in the shop in dispute. In the month of July, 1986, said Ravinder Pal Kaur and Jaimal Singh executed a rent note dated 3.7.1986 agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month w.e.f. 1.7.1986 instead of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The said rent note was executed by Ravinder Pal Kaur and Jaimal Singh on the representation that they are the only legal heirs of Ajit Singh deceased. 3. The petitioner filed ejectment petition wherein ex parte ejectment order was passed on 23.12.1991. Thereafter, proceedings for setting aside of ex parte ejectment order were initiated but the same were dismissed. The revision petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 14.08.2002 and Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.10.2002. 4. In execution of the ejectment order, objections were filed that the applicants, namely, Tej Kaur, mother, Azad Singh, Rasal Singh, sons, and Narinder Kaur, Prinderpal Kaur and Rajinder Kaur, daughters, of Ajit Singh deceased were not impleaded as a party in the ejectment petition and therefore, the ejectment order passed in their absence cannot be executed. It is the case of the objectors that they have inherited tenancy rights of Ajit Singh deceased. There is no allegation of any fraud and misrepresentation against Ravinder Pal Kaur and Jaimal Singh, two of the legal representatives, who were impleaded as a party in the eviction proceedings. 5. After considering the reply of the decree-holder, the learned trial Court found that the argument of the decree-holder that the objectors have surrendered their tenancy right can be decided after giving an opportunity to the party to lead evidence and consequently stayed execution of the ejectment order. 6. 5. After considering the reply of the decree-holder, the learned trial Court found that the argument of the decree-holder that the objectors have surrendered their tenancy right can be decided after giving an opportunity to the party to lead evidence and consequently stayed execution of the ejectment order. 6. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the objectors have objected to the execution of the ejectment order only on the ground that they as legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh were not impleaded as a party and, therefore, ejectment order cannot be executed. It is argued that as two of the legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh were party in the ejectment proceedings and heirs of the deceased tenant inherit the tenancy rights as joint tenants, therefore, the ejectment order obtained against one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant is binding on all the legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh tenant. Reliance was placed upon decisions of the Supreme Court reported as H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1470; Ashok Chintaman Juker and Ors. v. Kishore Pandurang Mantri and Anr., (2001)5 Supreme Court Cases 1, as well as decision of Single Bench of this Court reported as Devinder Sharma alias Balwinder Kumar Sharma v. Pritam Kaur and Ors., 1993(1) Rent Control Reporter 150. 7. Hon ble Supreme Court in H.C. Pandeys case (supra) has held as under:- "It is now well settled that on the death of the original tenant,, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limited 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 tenants, that he paid rent on behalf of all and he accepted notice also on behalf of all. In the circumstances, the notice was served on the respondent was sufficient......" 8. 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 tenants, that he paid rent on behalf of all and he accepted notice also on behalf of all. In the circumstances, the notice was served on the respondent was sufficient......" 8. A perusal of the objections leaves no manner of doubt that the only right claimed by the objectors is as legal heirs of the deceased tenant. Still further, there is no allegation that there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the legal heirs of deceased tenant impleaded in the ejectment petition. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased tenant will inherit the tenancy rights as joint tenants. Thus, the ejectment order passed against one of the legal heirs of deceased tenant would bind all the legal heirs. The said view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ashok Chintaman Jukers case (supra) wherein it as held to the following effect:- "This Court in the case of H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul taking note of the settled position 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, held that it is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable thereafter and that is the position as between the landlord and their heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. This Court further held that the respondent acted on behalf of the tenants; he paid rent on behalf of his father and he accepted notice on behalf of all; in the circumstances the notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the respondent was sufficient and it was a valid notice". 9. In view of the principles of law laid down in the afore-said judgments, the order passed by the learned Executing Court is not sustainable as there is no issue which arises out of the objections filed by some of the legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh. 10. Therefore, the present revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 21.08.2003 is set aside dismissing the objections dated 13.11.2002.