Sudhir Agarwal, J.;— 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a landlord and dispute relates to two shops situated at Mohalla Tikait Ganj, Badaun. He is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 3.11.1999 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Badaun whereby respondent-tenants' revision has been allowed and Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 26.10.1998 has been set aside resulting in dismissal of SCC Suit No.6 of 1989 filed by petitioner-landlord. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that earlier petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Munna Lal, being owner of shops in dispute, let out the same to one Ram Swaroop Son of Lala Gokul Chand vide rent deed dated 1.4.1945 for a period of 10 years on a monthly rent of Rs.8/-. Sri Ram Swaroop died in 1952 while Sri Munna Lal died in 1967. After the death of Munna Lal, the then owner of the shops, it was succeeded by his son Sita Ram, who also died in 1977 resulting in shops being succeeded by the petitioner. 4. Sri Ram Swaroop, the then tenant, had two sons i.e. Uma Shankar and Ram Murti. The petitioner pleaded that Ram Swaroop during his lifetime surrendered tenancy in favour of Uma Shankar and after the death of Uma Shankar, tenancy rights devolved upon the respondent no.2 and 9, who unauthorizedly and illegally let out the shops to the respondent no.10 Ram Murti (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs). The respondents no.2 to 9 also alleged to have fell in arrears of rent. 5. It is, however, not disputed that Ram Murti, in the present writ petition respondent no.10, tendered rent through money order but it was refused by landlord since according to him Ram Murti was not the tenant. The tenants i.e. legal heirs of late Uma Shankar and Ram Murti, himself, thereafter, deposited rent in the Court of Munsif, Badaun under Section 30(1) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") in Misc. Case No.85 of 1987 which was permitted to be deposited by Munsif vide order dated 10.3.1989. 6. The petitioner-landlord, however, determined tenancy vide notice dated 25.5.1989 on the ground of sub letting to Ram Murti and non payment of rent after 31.1.1987. Case No.85 of 1987 which was permitted to be deposited by Munsif vide order dated 10.3.1989. 6. The petitioner-landlord, however, determined tenancy vide notice dated 25.5.1989 on the ground of sub letting to Ram Murti and non payment of rent after 31.1.1987. It is said that the tenants sent reply dated 8.6.1989 to the notice of petitioner who, however, filed suit No. 6 of 1989 in the court of Small Cause, Budaun impleading Respondents No. 2 to 10 as opposite party No. 1 to 9 seeking a decree for ejectment of defendants and recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit. It was contested by all the defendants-tenants collectively filing their joint written statement dated 10.04.1990. 7. The Trial Court allowed the suit vide judgement dated 26.10.1998 holding that though there is no default in payment of rent but permitting Ram Murti to occupy the shops in question amounts to subletting and therefore, landlord is entitled for decree of eviction against defendant-tenants. The matter was taken in Revision No. 2 of 1999 by all the defendant-tenants i.e. Respondents No. 2 to 10 and the said revision has been allowed by Revisional Court, vide judgement dated 03.11.1999, impugned in this writ petition. 8. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact i.e. issue relating to subletting, which was decided by Trial Court in favour of landlord and therefore, revisional order is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. He further contended that initially tenancy rights were possessed by Sri Ram Swaroop, who during his own life, surrendered it to Sri Uma Shankar, one of his son, and therefore, after the death of Sri Umar Shankar, tenancy rights devolved only upon heirs of Uma Shankar and not that on Ram Murti. The Revisional Court has taken a view otherwise and has committed error of law and therefore, impugned judgement is liable to set aside. It is also urged that there is no evidence to show that Ram Murti was tenant in the shops in dispute, at any point of time, before, it was sublet by legal heirs of Uma Shankar to him, and yet Revisional Court has interfered with the matter by disturbing findings of subletting, which is patently illegal. 9. In my view, none of the submissions have any substance. 10. 9. In my view, none of the submissions have any substance. 10. After the death of Ram Swaroop, whether tenancy devolved in his legal heirs namely all the sons or whether tenancy did not subsisted with Ram Swaroop at the time of his death is the key question in the present matter. 11. It is admitted that two shops were let out to Sri Ram Swaroop, son of Lala Gokul Chand w.e.f. 1st April, 1945 vide rent deed dated 20.03.1945 executed between Sri Ram Swaroop, the tenant, and Sri Munna Lal, the owner of the shops in question. Both the shops were let out initially for a period of 10 years. Sri Ram Swaroop died in 1952. He had six sons namely; Uma Shankar, Ram Bharose Lal, Ram Raksh Pal, Ram Murti, Siya Ram and Ram Kishore. The landlord claims that even before his death, Sri Ram Swaroop surrendered tenancy in favour of Uma Shankar only, while the tenants' claim that there was no such surrender at all and it is all imaginary. Sri Ram Swaroop died without leaving any Will or his written intention regarding tenancy of shops but after his death, all his sons, who succeeded tenancy rights in common, took a decision/arrived at a private settlement that the two shops shall continue to be run, one by Uma Shankar and another by Ram Murti and the said arrangement continued accordingly. 12. It is not in dispute that Uma Shankar was the eldest amongst the sons of Sri Ram Swaroop and therefore, for all purposes, he represented family, jointly, and the rent receipts were also issued in the name of Uma Shankar. 13. Sri Uma Shankar died on 20.05.1987 and his tenancy rights devolved upon legal heirs i.e. respondents No. 2 to 9 in the present writ petition. So far as Sri Ram Murti is concerned, since there was no surrender of tenancy to anyone by his father, he also got joint tenancy rights with Uma Shanker. 14. It appears that Sri Krishna Gopal, one of the sons of Uma Shankar is actually looking after the business in one of the shops in question. It cannot be disputed that on the death of tenant in principal i.e. initial tenant Ram Swaroop, tenancy rights would be succeeded by all his legal heirs. 14. It appears that Sri Krishna Gopal, one of the sons of Uma Shankar is actually looking after the business in one of the shops in question. It cannot be disputed that on the death of tenant in principal i.e. initial tenant Ram Swaroop, tenancy rights would be succeeded by all his legal heirs. Hence after death of Ram Swaroop, original tenant, who was let out the shops in question in 1945, tenancy rights in both the shops would have been succeeded by his legal heirs unless otherwise is proved. Therefore, onus to prove that Ram Swaroop did not die intestate and instead either surrendered tenancy in favour of any individual during his life time or otherwise transferred tenancy to an individual, which could have been possible with the consent of landlord, lie on the landlord himself. In absence of anything available on record in writing or otherwise, it is evident that tenancy rights would be succeeded by all the legal heirs of initial tenant Ram Swaroop. This is what has been said by Revisional Court. 15. In the plaint of suit filed by petitioner, he has nowhere referred that shops in question were let out to Sri Ram Swaroop and therefrom tenancy rights devolved or transferred to Sri Uma Shankar. On the contrary the case set up by petitioner is that Uma Shankar, son of Ram Swaroop was tenant of shops and tenancy in respect to both the shops was a single unit, in favour of Uma Shankar, who continued to be the sole tenant till his death i.e. sometimes in 1987 and thereafter, tenancy stood transferred to legal heirs of Sri Uma Shankar, but these legal heirs illegally allowed entry of Ram Murti by subletting shops to him. This case set up by petitioner could not be substantiated by him, inasmuch as, subsequently pleadings and documents in evidence demonstrated that the two shops were actually let out by petitioner's predecessor-in-interest namely Sri Munna Lal to Sri Ram Swaroop in 1945. On these proved facts, the petitioner has changed his stand but failed to substantiate that also. 16. The Trial Court recorded a finding that initially Ram Swaroop was the tenant and he continued to be the tenant at the time of his death. The landlord could not prove that Sri Ram Swaroop surrendered tenancy during his lifetime to one of the sons namely Sri Uma Shankar. 16. The Trial Court recorded a finding that initially Ram Swaroop was the tenant and he continued to be the tenant at the time of his death. The landlord could not prove that Sri Ram Swaroop surrendered tenancy during his lifetime to one of the sons namely Sri Uma Shankar. He has referred to the statement of P.W. 2 Sri Shyama Charan son of Sri Munna Lal. It is evident from his statement that father of defendant no. 9 i.e. Sri Ram Swaroop and Sri Uma Shankar were tenant in both the shops. This is evident from the following; @ Hindi @ "It is evident from the aforesaid statement of witness that father of Late Uma Shankar and defendant No.9 was tenant of disputed shops" (English Translation by the Court) 17. Thereafter, he formulated a question whether Ram Swaroop surrendered his tenancy before his death but instead of reference to any evidence on this aspect, to be led by landlord on whom this onus lie, who set up this story, he (Trial Court) proceeded to discuss evidence led by defendant-tenants that though they claimed that after death of Ram Swaroop, there was a settlement between all the brothers namely sons of Ram Swaroop that two shops shall be looked after by two of the sons i.e. Sri Uma Shankar and Ram Murti but neither such statement in writing was placed on record nor adduced before Trial Court. He (Trial Court) also disbelieved that there was any segregation regarding shops between the tenants i.e. Ram Swaroop and Uma Shankar nor any such information was tendered to landlord. Thereafter he proceeded to consider, whether after the death of Ram Swaroop, all his sons would become tenants and held that out of six sons, four are already employed or looking after their own independent business elsewhere, therefore, none of them would become joint tenant in the shops in question. Thereafter he proceeded to consider various rent receipts to show that the same were issued in the name of Uma Shankar and the fact that rent receipt was never issued in the name of Ram Murti goes to show that Ram Murti was never admitted as tenant in the shops in question. Thereafter he proceeded to consider various rent receipts to show that the same were issued in the name of Uma Shankar and the fact that rent receipt was never issued in the name of Ram Murti goes to show that Ram Murti was never admitted as tenant in the shops in question. He also disbelieved the case of defendant no.9 i.e. Ram Murti that he was looking after his own business in one of the shops for about 10-12 years before the death of Sri Ram Swaroop. In these circumstances he proceeded to hold that Uma Shankar became sole tenant after death of Sri Ram Swaroop as he was earlier also a tenant and thereafter his legal heirs became joint tenants. Since Ram Murti was neither the tenant nor possess tenancy rights in the shops in question, therefore, it was a clear case of subletting. The approach of Trial Court is ex facie fallacious for the reason that to confer sole tenancy rights upon Sri Uma Shanker, onus lie upon landlord to prove this fact that when admittedly tenancy was created in favour of Sri Ram Swaroop, who died intestate, and, by operation of law tenancy rights would devolve upon all his legal heirs, whether they were employed elsewhere or not then how he (landlord) claim that it devolved only on Uma Shankar. In order to succeed tenancy rights, the factum that one or more of legal heirs are already employed elsewhere, is wholly irrelevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any principle of law in which a tenancy right shall not devolve upon a legal heir because he is in employment or pursuing his own business or elsewhere get employed etc. The tenancy right is kind of property right and once the incumbent having such right in property die, shall be succeeded by all the legal heirs by operation of law unless under some personal law or otherwise, it is prohibited or impermissible or confined to one or more but not to all heirs. In the present case no such prohibition or impermissibility was shown. The petitioner admittedly has miserably failed to show that Sri Ram Swaroop surrendered his tenancy right at any point of time during his life time. In fact the Trial Court itself found that tenancy of Sri Ram Swaroop continued till his death. In the present case no such prohibition or impermissibility was shown. The petitioner admittedly has miserably failed to show that Sri Ram Swaroop surrendered his tenancy right at any point of time during his life time. In fact the Trial Court itself found that tenancy of Sri Ram Swaroop continued till his death. If that be so, it would have to be succeeded by all his legal heirs including Ram Murti. It cannot be doubted that tenancy rights in common can be determined by serving notice upon one of the tenants in common but that by itself would not mean that tenancy rights shall not accrue to all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. The various well discussed reasons assigned by Revisional Court, do not justify any otherwise inference, for the reason, that, question of anything to be proved by defendant-tenants would arise only when the landlord prima facie is successful to discharge his burden and only then it would shift upon the tenant. 18. In the present case, initial story set up by landlord itself having not been proved that tenancy rights of Ram Swaroop stood surrendered or transferred exclusively to Uma Shankar during lifetime of Sri Ram Swaroop, entire edifice of the case set up by petitioner- landlord fell to ground, inasmuch as, once tenancy of Ram Swaroop stood continued till his death, it is bound to be succeeded by all his legal heirs including Ram Murti, who is admittedly one of his sons and there is no legal or other prohibition applicable in the present case. Mere fact that receipts were issued in favour of Uma Shankar cannot distract from the fact that tenancy rights were being enjoyed by all the legal heirs of Ram Swroop and such tenancy rights were not surrendered by any of legal heirs unless shown otherwise. In the present case four of the sons of Ram Swaroop when took up a stand that two sons continued to run their business in the shops in question and therefore they are the tenants in shops, would only mean that as per the own volition of all tenants, who enjoy co tenancy rights, the actual user were confined to two of them but that would not support the case of landlord that other legal heirs did not succeed tenancy rights in the shop in question after the death of Sri Ram Swaroop. The Revisional Court, therefore, in reversing the decision of Trial Court has not at all committed any error in law. It does not warrant interference witg the impugned order. 19. Once it is evident that Sri Ram Murti succeeded tenancy rights from his father Ram Swaroop, it is wholly incongruous to suggest that the same shops in question were sub-let to him by legal heirs of his own elder brother late Uma Shankar. The case set up by petitioner was apparently founded on a total misconception and amounts to sheer harassment of tenants and therefore, deserve to be dismissed with cost. 20. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed with cost, which I quantify to Rs.50,000/-. _____________