M.KATJU,J - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 7.2.1991. In this case the respondents have been served personally and an affidavit of service has been filed. They have also been served by registered post, but no counter- affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances I am holding the service to be sufficient and I am proceeding to dispose of this petition finally.
(2.) THE petitioner is landlord of House No. 810, Sotiganj, Meerut City who filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. 'Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 25.8.1990, a true copy of which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Against this order respondent No. 2 filed an appeal which was allowed by the impugned order dated 7.2.1991, a true copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed in this Court. The Lower Appellate Court has firstly held that the application under Section 21(1)(a) was not maintainable because the heirs of the tenant Rajendra Awasthi has not been impleaded. Sri Rajendra Awasthi had died in 1984 leaving behind three daughters and one son out of which one major daughter has been married while the remaining heirs are allegedly still living with respondent No. 2 Smt. Kanti Awasthi.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision of Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul, 1989(2) ARC 26, in which the Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "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 Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served by the appellant on the respondent is a valid notice and, therefore, the suit must succeed." ;