Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. Both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties as common thread of dispute passes through in both the cases.

2. The Petition WPC No. 3899/2022 is filed by Smt. Asha Shukla, Shri Rajat Shukla, Rajani Shukla, Renuka Shukla, Smt. Satyavati Shukla and Vipin Shukla, whereas WPC No. 3982/2022 is filed by Subodh Shukla, Ashish Shukla, Vinit Shukla and Smt. Sharda Shukla, total 10 persons have filed these two petitions.

3. Challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 08.7.2022 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur whereby an eviction order passed by Rent Control Authority, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) in a proceeding bearing No. 02/A-90(7) of 2016-17 was upheld for eviction. Instant petitions are by the tenants.

4. Brief facts of the cases are that Smt. Shanti Tiwari, aged about 68 years, and late Ajay Kumar Mishra filed petition for eviction against the tenants numbering into 17 claiming ejectment over the property constructed over plot comprised Sheet No. 49 Plot No. 2711, 35/66 admeasuring 5053 sq.ft. situated at Nayapara Ward, Jagdalpur. Initially an application was filed by the landlord in the year 2012-13. Said ejectment petition was preferred by Smt. Shanti Tiwari (landlord), arrayed as respondent No. 1 herein, against Subodh Shukla (the tenant) wherein ejectment order was passed in favour of the landlord on 08.8.2013. The said application was preferred under Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act, 2011'). The order of ejectment dated 08.8.2013 was subject of challenge before the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Control Tribunal vide its order dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure-P/4) allowed the appeal preferred by the tenants and set aside the order of ejectment on the ground that mandatory notice as required under Section 12(2) Schedule 2, S. No. 11(g) of the Act 2011 was not served to the tenants. Subsequently after issuing notice claiming possession, subsequent petition for ejectment was filed before the Rent Control Authority by landlord Shanti Tiwari and Ajay Kumar Mishra (since deceased) by Annexure-P/5 on 06.10.2016. In such petition, as many as 17 people were arrayed as respondents. Said application was adjudicated by the order of the Rent Control Authority on 29.6.2019 and ejectment order was passed by the Rent Control Authority (Annexure-P/7). The order of ejectment was subject of the challenge before the Rent Control Tribunal by the petitioners, wherein the Rent Control Tribunal had dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 08.7.2022 (Annexure-P/1), which is subject matter before this Court. Before the Rent Control Tribunal two appeals were filed, one by Subodh Shukla, Ashish Shukla, Vinit Shukla and Smt. Sharda Shukla for which writ petition No. 3982/2022 has been preferred, whereas, other set of non-applicants Smt. Asha Shukla, Rajat Shukla, Rajani Shukla, Renuka Shukla, Smt. Satyavati Shukla and Vipin Shukla filed separate appeal bearing Appeal No. 33/2019 and both the appeals were decided by common order. Hence, these two petitions.

5. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that mandatory notice, as required under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 S. No. 11(g) of the Act, 2011, was not served to all the tenants and only few of the tenants were served, which would be evident from the pleading of the petitioners, by the landlord. He would submit that as per the landlord on 08.8.2016, the notices were issued but the notices were not served to all the tenants. Referring to the affidavit filed by the landlord (Annexure-P/6), learned counsel would submit that in her cross - examination she admitted the fact that tenants who were arrayed at Sl. No. 4, 7 & 9 were not served with the notices. He would further submit that since there was no service of notice was effected on the tenants, consequently ejectment order against all would be bad in law, which the authority below and the Tribunal failed to consider.

(ii) He would further submit that referring to the documents filed by tenant Subodh Shukla, it is stated that while application was filed for deposit of rent in the Rent Control Authority and for demolition of certain part/construction of the tenanted premises. It is stated that the finding was arrived at by the Rent Control Authority that apart from rented premises, Subodh Shukla has encroached upon certain other part of the tenanted premise. It is stated that consequently, for the part on which the alleged encroachment has been stated, the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal would be denuded of its power to exercise its jurisdiction. Much emphasis was placed on this fact that service of notice was not effected to all the tenants which would resulted into non-compliance of the statutory provisions of the Act, 2011 and therefore, it requires interference. He would further submit that other defence which could not be considered was not considered by the Tribunal and the Rent Control Authority that there was no relation between the landlord and the tenant as no agreement was executed which was necessary as per Section 4 of the Act 2011, therefore, order requires interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is well merited. Referring to the Para 10 & 11, he would submit that Vivek Shukla admitted himself to be a tenant, and notice which is alleged to have been not served could be evident that notice issued to the respective parties on their registered address of which acknowledgment was never received back. Therefore, there would be presumption of service of notice. He would further submit that this finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and further notice to one of the tenant would be enough as tenancy was inherited. He has placed reliance in the matter of Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain and Anr. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 708 [LQ/SC/2018/548] }, therefore, the eviction order is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Perusal of the evidence would show that the rented premises was originally let out to one Shashi Shankar Shukla in the year 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. Shashi Shankar Shukla died on 31.10.2010. Thereafter all the respondents, who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 17, came in possession of the premises and consequently arrayed as respondents before the Rent Control Authority. Averments of allegation contains that after the death of original tenant Shashi Shankar Shukla, the rent was not paid and the respondents were in occupation without payment of rent. Further allegations were made that constructions were made over the tenanted premises without consent of the landlord. Perusal of the record would show that litigation in between the parties on several issues were pending. Order dated 08.8.2013 (Annexure-P/3) is about earlier litigation which was filed by Shanti Tiwari against Subodh Shukla. After the said order of eviction dated 08.8.2013 (Annexure-P/3), the same was subject of the challenge by Subodh Shukla before the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur and the Rent Control Tribunal by its order dated 15.02.2016 had set aside the order of eviction on the ground that proper statutory notice under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2, S. No. 11(g) of the Act 2011 was not served upon the tenants. Thereafter subsequent petition was filed (Annexure-P/5) wherein 17 people were arrayed as respondents claiming ejectment. Subodh Shukla, tenant, who was arrayed in the earlier ground of litigation, was arrayed as respondent No. 1.

9. Perusal of the subsequent petition (Annexure-P/5) would show that, claim was made on the ground of need as enumerated under Section 12(2) Schedule 2 S. No. 11(g) of the Act 2011 claiming accommodation for the family. Further pleading was also made that notice as required under 12(2) Schedule 2, S. No. 11(g) of the Act 2011 has been served to the respondents therein and since the eviction was claimed as senior citizen, one month notice was given to vacate the premises. Thereafter since the premises was not vacated, the petition was filed for ejectment on 06.10.2016. Perusal of Schedule 2 Sl. No. 11(g) of the Act 2011 contemplate that the landlord may ask for vacation of the tenanted premises if it is required for own accommodation or that of family and three months notice would be sufficient and in case, the landlord is covered under Special category, period of notice would deemed to be one month. Since the landlord was undisputedly a senior citizen, as such, that fact is not in dispute as pleaded by the landlord about claiming vacation of the premises was after issuance of the statutory limit of one month. Emphasis was made by the petitioners/tenants herein referring to the cross examination that non-applicants 4, 7 & 9 were not served. When specific question was put to the landlord that non applicants 4, 7 & 9 were not served, the owner/landlord replied to it saying that original tenant was Shashi Shankar Shukla and after his death, tenant was considered to be Subodh Shukla, his son, and his status was that of a tenant.

10. Annexure P/2, order passed by the Rent Control Authority dated 11.02.2013, is on record, which would show that an application was filed by Subodh Shukla against Shanti Tiwari before the Rent Control Authority, Jagdalpur, wherein it was observed that from 1976, original tenant late Shashi Shankr Shukla was inducted as tenant and after the death of original owner in the year 1999, rent was deposited by Subodh Shukla. Perusal of the said order would show that prayer was made by Subodh Shukla to deposit the rent before the Rent Control Authority as also for prayer was made to restrain certain action of the landlord against any demolition. Finding in the said order record that tenant Subodh Shukla was not only found to be in possession of the premises but was also recorded to have encroached certain part of the property comprised in the plot area. Therefore, by conduct of the parties, which shows that Subodh Shukla, claims to be the tenant and working on behalf of other heirs while he prosecuted the proceedings before the Rent Control Authority in the year 2012-2013.

11. Submission has been made by the petitioners/tenants that statutory notice under the Act 2011 was not served to all the occupants. As per the evidence which has come on record would show that Shashi Shankar Shukla was the original tenant and after his death, Subodh Shukla was the frontage and was acting as tenant on behalf of others. Apart from the presumption of the fact that statutory notice of eviction may have been served under Section 12(2) of the Act, 2011, the legal position would boil down to the fact wherein on the death of original tenant, legal heirs would succeed to the tenancy as joint tenancy and not as tenants-in-common. The Supreme Court in the matter of HC Pandey. vs. GC Paul reported in (1989) 3 SCC 77 [LQ/SC/1989/275] }, laid down that on the death of original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. Further it held that it is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefore. Therefore, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. The record would show that Subodh Shukla acted on behalf of other tenants/occupants, paid rent and preferred litigation before the Rent Control Authority in his individual capacity espousing cause of all occupants.

12. Consequently, even if the notice is not served to all the occupants, service of notice to one of the heirs, who is acting on behalf of others, would be sufficient and notice given to one means notice given to all. The aforesaid preposition is further supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Kohli (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court has reiterated the same in matter of HC Pandey (supra) and held as under:-

"24. We are of the view that in the light of HC Pandey (1989) 3 SCC 77, [LQ/SC/1989/275] the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenants is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for the landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail."

13. Another submission is raised that if the tenant is in occupation of the premises encroachment upon certain part, other than rented premises, he should resort to civil suit. Reading to New Act of CG Rent Control Act, 2011, the object shows that parsimonious chance of flashing smiles is given to the landlord balancing to the right of the tenant. It would be travesty of justice to hold that if the tenant has encroached upon certain part of premises other than the tenanted part, he deserves a crown and will have a catastrophic consequence. The object of the of 2011 is to give relief to affected persons. The records would show that kind of defence adopted by Subodh Shukla, who was acting on behalf of the tenants, tried to make entire object of the Act 2011 porous which cannot be appreciated and upheld.

14. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that findings of the learned Tribunal, do not require any interference as either it has exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the law. In the result, both the petitions fail.

15. Taking into the fact that the respondent/landlord is senior citizen and the litigation is going on since 2012-13, we direct that compliance of ejectment order of the Rent Control Authority be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.