ABDUL SALAM Vs. 1ST A.D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST revised. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Landlords petitioners filed eviction suit against tenants respondents before J.S.C.C./IInd Additional Munsif, Bulandshahr which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 1984. Suit has filed after terminating the tenancy. Initially, Gulam Hussain was tenant who had died much before filing of the suit and all of his heirs were made defendants in the suit. However, notice of termination of tenancy given prior to filing of suit, even though addressed to all the heirs of late Gulam Husain/tenants, was served upon only two of them. Default in making payment of rent and material alteration were grounds for eviction. Tenants on the first date of hearing of the suit deposited the entire rent interest and cost of the suit hence the said ground did not survive. Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of material alternation through judgment and decree dated 13.3.1985. Against the said judgment and decree tenants respondents filed S.C.C. Revision No. 53 of 1985. 1st Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr allowed the revision on 10.8.1987, hence this writ petition by the landlords.

(2.) REVISIONAL Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed the suit. The Revisional Court held that after the death of the original tenant Gulam Husain all his heirs became tenants in common, hence it was necessary to serve notice of termination of tenancy upon all of them. The said view is no more the correct view. The Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. A.D.M. : 1995 (25) ALR 184 (SC) and A.C. Juker v. K.P. Mantri : AIR 2001 SC 2251 has held that after the death of the tenant his heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. In case of joint tenants service of notice upon some of the tenants is sufficient. In this regard learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited Bishan Chandra v. Abdul Hamid, 1983 (2) ARC 282 wherein it has been held that even in case of tenants in common, notice addressed to all of them but served upon some of them is sufficient. Unfortunately, Revisional Court did not decide the question of material alteration, hence this Court has got no option except to remand the matter to the Revisional Court.

(3.) THE eviction of the tenants -respondents from the house in dispute shall be remain stayed during pendency of revision provided that with effect from May, 2005 onwards either they pay rent to the landlord -petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month by 7th of each succeeding month through money order after deducting money order charges or they deposit the said rent by the said date before Revisional Court which shall at once be paid to the landlords -petitioners. As no one has appeared on behalf of tenants -respondents, hence Revisional Court before proceeding further shall ensure the service of notice upon tenants respondents. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.