A suit in respect of the joint tenancy by issuing a notice determining the tenancy to only some of the heirs of the original tenants and impleading only such heirs and leaving aside the other heirs is maintainable because the joint tenancy of the heirs of a deceased tenant is represented by one of the heirs who is also one of the joint tenants.

( 1 ) -THIS second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 161 of 1990 reversing those passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 227 of 1987.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellants instituted the said suit against the defendant-respondents for eviction from the suit premises contending inter alia that plaintiff No. 2 is the owner of the house being the middle block of Premises No. 186, Harish Mukherjee Road renumbered as 1868 Harish Mukherjee Road in the name of his wife plaintiff No. 1. The defendants and other two sisters were joint-tenants under the plaintiff in respect of the entire first floor of Premises No. 186, Harish Mukherjee Road. Defendants are defaulters in payment of rent. Plaintiff No. 2 reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and the use and occupation of the members of his family. The plaintiffs filed the suit after notice to quit upon the defendants through their Advocate calling upon them to quit and vacate the suit premises. The defendants received the notice but did not vacate the suit-premises.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement in which it was pleaded inter alia that the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties as plaintiff No. 2 was unnecessarily impleaded as party and Suit. Rita Dasgupta and Sort. Madhumita Dasgupta was have interest in the tenancy have not been impleaded. The defendants challenged the validity of the notice and maintainability of the suit. It was also denied that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation.

( 4 ) UPON a consideration of evidence on record the learned Munsif has held that Rita Dasgupta and Madhumita Dasgupta, two other daughters of the original tenant Amulya Dasgupta, since deceased, have no subsisting interest in the tenancy and are not, therefore, necessary parties in this suit. The notice is accordingly good and the suit is maintainable. The ground of default was not pressed at the time of trial. The learned Munsif has held that the plaintiff No. 2 reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation for the members of his family and that the present accommodation of the plaintiff is quite insufficient. He has accordingly passed a decree for ejectment against the defendants. On appeal by the defendants the learned lower Appellate Court has held that Rita Dasgupta and Madhumita Dasgupta have not surrendered or relinquished the tenancy right and as they have subsisting right in the tenancy the notice being not addressed to them is bad in law. On that ground alone the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court has not recorded any finding on the alleged reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Roy Chaudhury, learned Advocate for the appellants has contended that a suit in respect of the joint tenancy by issuing a notice determining the tenancy to only some of the heirs of the original tenants and impleading only such heirs and leaving aside the other heirs is maintainable because the joint tenancy of the heirs of a deceased tenant is represented by one of the heirs who is also one of the joint tenants. In support of his contention be has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sumilita Bhattacharjee and another v. Smt. Nila Chatterjee, 1989 (2) CLJ 351. The further contention of Mr. Roy Chaudhury is that Rita and Madhumita categorically and in unambiguous terms disclaimed any tenancy right in the suit premises before the High Court in a previous proceeding between the parties and as such the lower Appellate Court has committed error in