Shiv Nath Katju, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant respondents from a quarter situate in the town of Ghaziabad and also for recovery of arrears of rent. Admittedly one Nandlal was the tenant of the premises in question since over 20 years prior to the institution of the present suit on 12 -12 -62. The defendant Shivrani is Nand Lal's widow. He had two sons Hira Lal and the minor Ganesh and two daughters. The appellant served a combined notice on Smt. Shivrani and the minor Ganesh on 22 -9 -62. At first only Shivrani and Ganesh were impleaded as defendants in the suit. Subsequently Hiralal was also impleaded as a defendant by the appellant. The appellant contended that the tenancy had come to an end on the death of Nand Lal and the defendants were liable to ejectment. It was contended in alternative that even if the tenancy had devolved on the heirs of Nandlal the defendants were not entitled to remain in occupation because they had committed default in the payment of rent since 1 -9 -61. The defendants contested the suit on the ground, inter alia, that the notice of demand and ejectment was invalid since it had not been given to all the heirs of Nand Lal on whom the tenancy had devolved on Nand Lal's death. It was further contended that the tenancy in favour of Nand Lal was from month to month and after his death it had devolved on his heirs including Hira Lal and the two daughters. It was further contended that Hira Lal did not live separately from his parents. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiff -appellant and decreed the suit. On appeal the lower appellate court modified the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit only for recovery of Rs. 242/ - as arrears of rent and dismissed the rest of the claim. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that the tenancy in favour of Nand Lal was a tenancy at will and not being heritable it had not devolved on the respondents. The court below has found that Nandlal was the tenant of the house for the last about 20 years and no lease deed had been executed by him in favour of his landlord Mohammad Ishaq Khan. A lease for which no term is fixed is a lease running from month to month and is heritable. The court below relied on a decision of this court in Ram Nath v/s. Netra ( : 1962 AWR 646) in which it was held: Where a tenant continues in possession after the expiry of an oral lease he becomes a tenant from month to month u/S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and on his death his rights under the monthly tenancy devolves on his heirs. A similar view was expressed in Anwar Ali Beopari v/s. Jami Roy Chaudhary ( : AIR 1940 Cal. 89).
(2.) A Full Bench of this court in Shivnath v/s. R.B. Lal ( : 1967 AWR 668) considered the distinction between a tenancy at will and a month to month tenancy. It was observed: - - A tenancy from month to month is not a tenancy for a fixed period. Yet parties can be certain about duration for a minimum period. A tenancy from month to month is tenancy for one month certain. There is a reasonable prospect of the tenancy being renewed beyond one month. But there is no certainty. Either party may terminate such a tenancy by giving the appropriate notice to the opposite party.
(3.) There is nothing in the present case to indicate that the tenancy held by Nand Lal was a tenancy at will which could be terminated either by the landlord or by the tenant by a mere expression of intention. It was further observed in Shivanath's case (supra) that the tenancy of a tenant from month to month is heritable.;