In tenant inheritance cases, heirs succeed as joint tenants, maintaining single tenancy and shared liabilities for eviction, not independently.

Reserved on: 22.05.2025 Date of decision:28.05.2025 The Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank Limited ..Appellant Versus Vijay Bansal and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 4 ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The decree-holder assails the correctness of the concurrent order passed by the Executing Court, which in appeal, has been affirmed by the appellate authority while allowing the objections filed by the respondents no. 1 to 4 and dismissing the execution petition filed by the appellant.

2. The following genealogy illustrates the relationship of the parties:- Panna Lal |

| | | |

Jaswant Rai Charan Dass Girdhari Lal Banwari Lal |

______________________________________________________

| | | |

Vijay Sanjeev Navneet Ashish Bansal Bansal Bansal Bansal

3. Panna Lal was inducted as tenant in the shop of the appellant-Bank. Thereafter, Panna Lal died. Bank filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the tenant. Jaswant Rai, Charan Dass, Girdhari Lal three sons of Panna Lal were impleaded as respondents. The eviction was sought on the ground of bonafide personal necessity, which was though dismissed by the Rent Controller on 19.12.2006 but reversed by the appellate authority on 28.11.2008. The revision petition filed by Jaswant Rai, Charan Dass, Girdhari Lal in the High Court was dismissed on 23.01.2014 while upholding the eviction order. Execution petition was filed for implementation of the eviction order in which Vijay Bansal and others heirs of Banwari Lal filed objections, which have been allowed by the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that on inheritance of tenancy, Banwari Lal became statutory tenant and objectors were not party to the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, it cannot be executed against them.

4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

5. After the death of original tenant, his heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenant and not as tenants in common. The tenancy inherited by them is a single tenancy and there is no splitting of tenancy amongst the heirs. This position of law is no longer res integra in view of a larger Bench judgment in Harish Tandon vs. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad UP and others (1995) 1 SCC 537 which was followed in Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain and another 2018 AIR SC 2708. Para 22 of Harish Tandon’s case (supra) is extracted as under:-

“22. The attention of the learned Judges constituting the Bench in the case of H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul [(1989) 3 SCC 77] was not drawn to the view expressed in the case of Mohd. Azeem v. Distt. Judge [(1985) 2 SCC 550 : (1985) 3 SCR 906] . There appears to be an apparent conflict between the two judgments. It was on that account that the present appeal was referred to a Bench of three Judges. According to us, it is difficult to hold that after the death of the original tenant his heirs become tenants-in-common and each one of the heirs shall be deemed to be an independent tenant in his own right. This can be examined with reference to Section 20(2) which contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. Clause (a) of Section 20(2) says that if the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand, then that shall be a ground on which the landlord can institu