9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther B.M. Paul, was the tenant of the premises in question. On his death he left behind the respondent, his mother, brothers and sisters who inherited the tenancy. A notice under Section 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 appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt took the view that as heirs of the deceased tenant they held the tenancy 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 dismissed the suit. The High Court relied on Ramesh Chand Bose v. Gopeshwar Prasad Sharma AIR1977All38 where it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Bone (supra) is erroneous where the High Court lays down that the heirs of the deceased tenant succee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
