Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Surya Kant learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.C. Saxena, Advocate for the contesting respondents. The impugned judgment and order in the instant writ petition is dated 22.9.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority in a proceeding under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') deciding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the tenant on an application B -90. The tenant -petitioner preferred previous Writ Petition No. 114 (R/C) of 2005 -Smt. Indrajeet Gulati v. Civil Judge (Senior Division and others claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of late Madan Lal Gulati and the consequent tenancy right after death of her husband and therefore, they are necessary party for proper adjudication of the proceeding initiated under section 21 of the Act. The writ petition was allowed when it was moved as a fresh case since the Counsel for the respondents had also appeared and both the parties were represented and agreed that the writ petition be heard finally. The order dated 1.8.2005 passed in previous writ petition is also on record. It appears that the Prescribed Authority rejected the impleadment application filed at the instance of the petitioner on 20.7.2005, which was challenged in previous writ petition. This Court while disposing of the writ petition, directed that the notices shall be served on the opposite parties/legal heirs except the petitioner who had moved impleadment application and also directed the Prescribed Authority for expeditious disposal, preferable with in a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of the order is produced before him. After redressal of the grievance to the effect that the heirs of late Madan Lal Gulati were impleaded, notices were given thereafter an application B -90 was moved objecting the maintainability of the release application. The prayer for deciding the question of maintainability as preliminary issue was accepted by the Prescribed Authority and decided by means of the impugned order.
(2.) THE tenant -petitioner claimed that the landlord was M/s. Dittumal Govind Ram and Sons was the landlord of Shop No. 54 Goel Market, Gautam Budh Marg, Lucknow. Madan Lal Gulati died on 30.11.2004 and thereafter his heirs inherited the tenancy. The respondent No. 2 Narendra Pal Singh, who had instituted the release application, was never landlord and there was no contract of tenancy between the respondent No. 2 and erstwhile tenant Madan Lal Gulati. Objection was filed by the respondent No. 2 to the aforesaid application stating therein that Karam Chand Agarwal was he karta of HUF and was owner of the constructed shop, which was in tenancy of the petitioner. The old constructions were demolished in the year 1979 and thereafter new construction came in existence. The old constructions were purchased by the ancestors of Karam Chand Agarwal in two part, one by means of registered sale deed dated 27.10.1949 and remaining part was purchased by means of another registered sale deed dated 28.11.1955. Certified copies of two sale deed were brought on record. Sri Rai Sahab Karam Chand Agarwal constructed a shop as Karta of HUF. He had four sons, Dharam Pal K. Agarwal was the eldest, who was the Karta and M/s. Dittumal Govind Ram was the firm of late Karam Chand Agarwal and therefore, any objection on the part of the tenant is unsustainable. Subhash Chandra was the power of attorney holder of firm Dittumal Govind Ram, who had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the landlord -respondent on 12.9.2000. The respondent No. 2 himself is the landlord, which has been admitted by the tenant Vijay Gulati. The sale deed dated 12.9.2000 has been brought on record as paper No. C -63 and the Court below has recorded a finding that perusal of the said sale deed, it transpired that Dharam Pal K. Agarwal, son of late Rai Sahab Karam Chand Agarwal had appointed Subhash Chandra Agarwal as attorney in the capacity of Karta of HUF and the said sale deed was executed. Written statement was also perused by the Court below where unequivocal statement was given that the applicant is landlord and the opposite parties are the tenant and it is also admitted that the shop in question was purchased in the month of September, 2000. The written statement, Paper No. B -25 was also brought on record. However, the finding of the Prescribed Authority accepting the respondent No. 2 as landlord is a question, which is a finding of fact. The Court below has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Harish Tandon v. A.D.M. Allahabad and others : 1995 (25) ALR 184 (SC), where it is ruled that after the death of the original tenant, his heirs will be deemed to be holding the premises as joint tenants. For any breach committed by any of such joint tenants, all the heirs of the original tenant have to suffer. The heirs of original tenant are co -tenants or joint tenants and the tenancy cannot be divided. In H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul : 1989 (15) ALR 864 (SC), the Apex Court ruled, on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provisions 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 therefore. 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.
(3.) BESIDES , the Court below has come to a conclusion that the sale deed, which is registered sale deed, was documentary evidence and that cannot be overlooked unless and until the said evidence is negated by another documentary evidence, mere denial is not sufficient.;