Radhika Sharma vs Union Of India And Another

Daughter of Kanta Wazir, petitioner in WP(C) No.1568/2020 has filed the instant petition challenging the resumption notices dated 21.08.2020 and

15.09.2020 issued by the respondents. Challenge to the resumption notice is on identical grounds as have been raised by the writ petitioner in WP(C)

No.1568/2020.

This Court has dealt with the aforesaid writ petition in extenso and has dismissed the same being devoid of any merit. What is said in the aforesaid

judgment clearly applies on all fours to the case of the petitioner herein as well. However, one additional plea raised by the petitioner in this petition is

that she being the legal heirs of Sh. Manmohan Wazir was entitled to issuance of separate resumption notice which was never issued to her. It is

submitted that the notice to Smt. Kanta Wazir, if any issued, cannot be deemed to be notice to the petitioner.

I have examined this issue raised by the petitioner carefully and am of the view that no separate notice was required to be issued to the petitioner.

As is categorically held by this Court in the case of Kanta Wazir that the lease hold rights, which were vested in Sh. T.C.Wazir, were never

transferred to Sh. Manmohan Wazir, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and her mother, Kanta Wazir.

That apart, even if it is assumed that Manmohan Wazir was the lessee, who had stepped into the shoes of Sh.T.C.Wazir, yet on his death, his lease

hold rights will devolve on the petitioner and other legal heirs and the subject property shall be held by all the legal heir as joint tenants. It is well settled

that in the cases of joint tenants, the notice to one of the joint tenants is sufficient and all the joint tenants are not required to be served with notice of

eviction separately. This has been said by the Supreme Court in the case of Boddu Venkatakrishna Rao & Ors v. Shrimati Boddu Satyavathi & Ors.,

AIR 1968 SC 751 and H.C.Pandey v. G.C.Paul, 1989 SC 1470. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph No.4 of the judgment in

H.C.Paney (supra) are relevant and are reproduced hereunder:-

“It is now well settled 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. 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 served on the respondent was sufficient. It seems to us that the view taken in Ramesh Chand Bose, (supra) is erroneous where the High Court

lays down that the heirs of the deceased tenant succeed as tenants in common. In our opinion, the notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act

served by the appellant on the respondent is a valid notice and therefore the suit must succeed.â€​

In the subsequent judgment of Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rekha Jain and others, (2018) 6 SCC 708, the Supreme Court, on consideration of

various judgments on the point of service of notice upon all the legal heirs of the original tenant held thus:-

“We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the

tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal

heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who

are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only

those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint

tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is

not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.â€​

The very foundation on which the instant petition has been filed is knocked down by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

For all what has been said above and also in the judgment rendered in WP(C) No.1568/2020, I find no merit in this petition. The same is,

accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications.