Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner. None has appeared on behalf respondents 3 and 4 though name of Sri B.B. Paul has been shown in the cause list.

2. Petitioner-landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent on the ground of default in payment of rent as also subletting. The Trial Court dismissed suit holding that there was no default in payment of rent. It also found that there was no sublet. In the revision preferred by petitioner, Revisional Court found that there was a default in payment of rent. It also held that there was no compliance of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) so as to protect the petitioner from decree of eviction. However, Revisional Court dismissed suit on the ground that there was no valid notice served by petitioner upon the tenant inasmuch respondent-tenant Luchi Ram Agarwal had died but the notices were not served upon all legal heirs of the deceased tenant.

3. It is contended that after death of original tenant, all the legal heirs constitute joint tenancy. If the notice has been served even upon one of the legal heirs, it is sufficient notice to all the legal heirs. Hence it cannot be said invalid having not been served upon all the legal heirs. Reliance is placed on Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, 1995 (25) ALR 184.

4. When the original tenancy is in the name of an individual and the individual died, legal heirs succeeding tenancy rights get it jointly unless a provision to the contrary exists.

5. In H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul, 1989 (2) ARC 26, the Apex Court said that on the death of original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting succession, tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. Thus in other words the heirs succeed the tenancy as joint tenants.

6. The above legal exposition was reiterated and approved by a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and others, 1991 (1) ARC 220 and in paras 23 and 24 of judgment the Court said that it is difficult to hold that after the death of original tenant, his heirs become tenant in common and each one of the heirs shall be deemed to be an independent tenant in his own right. On the contrary, 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 the tenancy as joint tenants. The Court also referred to and followed its earlier Constitution Bench Judgment in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and others, 1985 SCFBRC 229 SC. The Bench also referred to a contrary decision in Mohd. Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh, 1985 (2) ARC 85 (SC) and having considered the same in para 27 held that decision in Mohd. Azeem (surpa) does not lay down correct law. It said that decision in H.C. Pandey (supra) lays down the correct law. The above exposition of law has further been reiterated in Ashok Chintaman Juker v. Kishore Pandurang Mantri, AIR 2001 SC 2251.

7. That being so, notice given to one of the joint tenants is sufficient and also need not be given to all the tenants separately. This issue has also been settled by this Court in Qamar Alam v. IInd ADJ, Meerut, 2005 (2) ARC 971 and Sandeep Bhatia v. Vth ADJ, Bijnor, 2001 (2) ALR 630 followed in Writ Petition No. 62 (Rent Control) of 2011 (Dr. Ritu Raj Gupta and others v. Laxmi Narayan Agarwal and others) decided on 7.12.2011. In this view of the matter, service of notice upon all the legal heirs was not necessary at all but it was sufficient to serve notice upon one of joint tenants. Such a notice cannot be said bad merely because it has been served upon one of the joint tenants. The argument advanced on behalf of petitioner, thus, deserves to be accepted.

8. In the result