After the death of the original tenant, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs jointly, and any action of the joint tenant binds the other joint tenants, even if they have not been impleaded.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is opposite party No. 3 in the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") for eviction of the opposite parties from the shop in dispute on the ground that the landlord bona fide required it.

( 2 ) OPPOSITE party Nos. 1 and 4 had put in appearance and file their written statement. The two daughters namely opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were served by publication on 25. 1. 2007 but they did not file the written statement within the time specified. Opposite party No. 2 Smt. Deena Gupta filed an application seeking permission to file the written statement. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 26. 2. 2008. Subsequently opposite party No. 3 Smt. Pooja Gupta also filed an application seeking permission of the Prescribed Authority to file the written statement. This application was rejected by the order dated 17. 4. 2008. It is this order which has been impugned in the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE record of the writ petition indicate that Sri Surendra Kumar Gupta was the tenant of the shop in dispute and after his death his widow, two daughters and his son became joint tenants. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 4 have already filed a written statement and are contesting the case. The Prescribed authority has fixed todays date i. e. 21. 5. 2008 for judgment.

( 4 ) IN the application filed by opposite party No. 3, it has been stated that she had no knowledge of the pendency of the application and since she does not have good relations with her brother and when the aid opposite party came to the house in Moradabad during Holi festival, some relatives informed her about the pendency of the application. It has also been stated that the brother of the petitioner has entered into some arrangement with the landlord to cause harm to the said opposite party and, therefore, permission may be given to the opposite party to Hie the written statement.

( 5 ) THE widow, opposite party No. 1 has also filed a written statement and there is no averment in the application that the relationship of opposite party no. 3 with the widow are not cordial. In such circumstances when opposite party No. 1 has filed a written statement and is contesting the case, the application filed by the opposite party No. 3 for accepting the written statement has rightly been rejected by the Prescribed Authority.

( 6 ) A three Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U. P. and others, 1995 25 ALR (SC) 184, resolved the dispute between the earlier two Bench decisions in mohd. Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh and others, 1985 11 ALR (SC) 358 and h. C. Pandey v. G. C. Paul, 1989 15 ALR (SC) 864 and observed that the heirs of the deceased tenant succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. In Mohd azeem (supra) the Supreme Court had observed that the definition of tenant in the Act did not warrant the view that all the heirs will become a body of tenants to give rise to the concept of joint tenancy. In H. C. Pandey (supra), the supreme Court observed that the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. It is on account of the aforesaid conflict between the two judgments that a Bench of three Judges was constituted. The Supreme Court elaborately examined the provisions of the Act and concluded :

"it was rightly said by this Court that after the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolved on the heirs of the deceased tenants jointly. 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 and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenant. "

( 7 ) IN Kishore Seth v. Satish Chandra Nigam and others, 2005 59 ALR 555, this Court observed :

"i have co