H.C. PANDEY versus G.C. PAUL

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 28-04-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

H.C. PANDEY 
v. 
G.C. PAUL 
APRIL 28, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND S. NATARAJAN, J.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s. 106-Notice determining 
tenancy served on co-inheriter..._.--Validity of. 
_ The respondent inherited tenancy of the demised premises along-
with his mother, brothers and sisters from their father. A notice under 
s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy was 
served on him. It was followed by a snit for ejectment against him. 
A 
B 
c 
Upholding the validity of the said notice, the trial court took the 
view that the heirs of the original tenant held the tenancy as joint-
tenants and, therefore, notice to one of the defendants was sufficient to 
D 
determine the tenancy . 
...!;' 
Allowing the appeal therefrom, theHigh Court took the view that 
as heirs of the deceased tenant they held the tenancy as tenants-in-
common and not as joint-tenants. Therefore, the notice to quit should 
have been served on each one of the successor tenants. 
E 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD: The notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 
r ser-ved by the appellant on the respondent was a valid notice. [77IE] 
·~ . 
On the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the 
F 
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. The heirs thus succeed t';i the 
G 
tenancy as joint-tenants. {77ICl -
In the instant case, the respondent acted on behalf of the tenants, 
he paid rent on behalf of all and accepted notice also on behalf of all. In 
the circumstances, the notice served on the respondent was sufficient. 
The suit must, therefore. suc~eed. [77ID] 
· 
. H 
769 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
119891 z S.C.R-. 
Shrimati Vishnawati v. BhagwatVithu Chowdhry, [1969] A.L.J. 
1131, affirmed. 
Ramesh Chand Bose v. Gopeshwar Prasad Sharma, AIR 1977 
Allahabad 38, overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3342 
of 1979. 
{ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1978 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Second Civil Appeal No. 300 of 1975. 
0 .P. Rana and Raju Ramachandran for the Appellant. 
Vivek Ghambir aad Praveen Kumar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATHAK, CJ. This is a landlord's appeal by special leave aris-
ing out of a suit for ejectment. 
The respondent's father B.M. Pa'ul,.was the tenant of the pre-
mises in question. On his death he left behind the respondent, his 
mother, brothers and sisters who in-herited the tenancy. A notice 
under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy 
was addressed to the respondent and was served on him. It was not 
addressed and served on the other tenants. A suit for ejectment was 
filed by the appellant against the respondent. The validity of the notice 
to quit was challenged by the respondent. It was contended that notice 
should have been addressed to all the members of the family and 
served on them, and in the absence of notice to all the suit was incom-
petent. The trial court upheld the validity of the notice relying upon 
the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shrimati Vishnawati v. 
Bhagwat Vithu Chowdhry, [1969]A.L.J. 1131 on the footing that the 
, defendants were joint tenants and constituted a single unit and there-
fore notice to one of the defendants was sufficient to determine the 
tenancy. The view proceeded on the basis that the heirs of the original 
tenant held the tenancy as joint tenants. When the matter ultimately 
came to the High Court in second appeal, the High C-eu,rt took the 
view that as heirs of the deceased tenant they held the -teQancy as 
tenants in common and not as joint tenants. Accordingly, the High 
Court said, notice to quit should have been served on each one of the 
successor tenants. In that view, the High Court allowed the appeal and 
~ 
"( 
I 
·~
J 
r 
H.C. PANDEY v. G.C. PAUL [PATHAK, CJ] 
771 
1,_· dismissed the suit. The High Court relied on Ramesh Chand Bose v. 
A 
Gopeshwar Prasad Sharma, AIR 1977Allahabad 38 where it was held 
that a tenancy was a heritable property right and the. heirs of the 
decea~ed tenant became tenants themselves. 
In this appeal the entire question is whether the notice addressed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.