 Good evening, friends. Amongst us, we have Justice Sunil Thomas, a former judge from Keralaico. Before we embark upon the knowledge sharing process, first of all, congratulations to Justice Sunil Thomas on being appointed as a judicial member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. And we wish that the same way what his judicial journey and personal life at professional front, which has seen new benchmarks in his second innings, first as a lawyer and then as a judge. The third innings as a Central Administrative Member Judicial goes on well and we are quite sacrosanct about that. As they say that coming events, past the shadows, we are quite sure that the events of knowledge sharing would continue. And when we are congratulated Justice Sunil Thomas, the first reaction of his was that his knowledge sharing process towards the CLC, beyond CLC, would continue. And we have seen with Justice Sunil Thomas that he has shared his knowledge sharing on different issues and different perspectives on both. Today's session is joint tenancy, tenancy in commons, and tenancy bare entities. These all words, they interplay between as such, if you think as a common man, you find that probably there is some error, there's no difference as such. But as they say that the law consumes its own judicial journey, by the subtle differences of the expression of the word by the pauses, the commas, the semicolons and the full stop. But where the words itself are different, it has its different connotations and legal processes and legal brains work in a different fashion and different mind. To understand all this, we request Justice Sunil Thomas to share his knowledge. We are all waiting to lurch upon the knowledge being shared by him. Over to you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Vikas. It's always a pleasure to be with all of the, all the members of CLC, because we are in the learning process. So this time I'm supposed to discuss with you a topic which is of much relevance, commonly used and slightly confusing also. Joint tenancy, tenancy in common and tenancy by entire entities. Now, one of the basic concept of love property, which we all studied during our college days is that there can never be a property without an owner. Clearly indicating that property should always rest with an owner. It can be a single owner or it can be owners. When the property is owned by more than one person, we call them jointly as co-owners. Now, what is meant by the concept of co-ownership? Co-ownership we say that it is a case of concurrent ownership, concurrent position and concurrent enjoyment of property by more than one person. So that is the concept of co-ownership. In a co-ownership, each co-owner has a share over the entire property or here only thing is that he can have the enjoyment of the entire property. The only difference in the case of a co-ownership property is that the individual portion of that property is not allotted to him, not separately demarcated and it is not separately identifiable. So as long as the property remains as a co-ownership property, one can say that each co-owner has got a share over each grain of sand that constitute that land or even each portion of that property. Under the English law, the concept of co-ownership takes in three distinct concepts. One is joint tenancy. The other one is tenancy in common. And the third one is tenancy by entire taste, which is not, which is a rather I may say is a loose word. I'll deal with it separately, but that's not a very, it's a distinct one, but not a very, very significant one. Essentially, we have to understand what is meant by a joint tenancy and what is meant by tenancy in common? Are they the same or are they different or how they differ from each other? Tenancy, what then I also caution you that when you go through these legal terms, you will find a lot of other words being used, joint ownership, common ownership, ownership in common like that. All are loosely used words, denoting either a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common. One thing where I will caution you all is that, don't confuse the term tenancy with the tenancy relationship that exists between a landlord and a tenant. It has absolutely nothing to do, it's a totally different concept from that of the tenancy arrangement between a landlord. Why we use the term tenancy, to denote a partnership property held jointly or commonly is that it is based on the Latin word, tenant, which means only to hold. So it derives from that word, not the landlord-tenant relationship. So keep it in your mind that the tenancy, joint tenancy and tenancy in common has absolutely nothing to do with the tenancy as we have in the case of a landlord-tenant relationship. Now you have to understand is that, though the term tenancy in common or common tenancy and joint tenancy have got a lot of common features. Fundamentally, they are two distinct concepts. Inherently distinct different concepts with regard to the nature of ownership, regarding the rights and duties consequential to the ownership and they would vastly differ from each other in content as well as on its impact. Fundamentally, the term joint tenancy, terms joint tenancy and tenancy in common are different in not only in form and in substance. Just before venturing into the details of that concept in detail, I'll tell you the three important ingredients, three important rights that exist in the case of a co-ownership property. In the case of a co-ownership property, each corner has got an unlimited right of access to the common property held jointly by them. So that as long as the property remains as a co-ownership property, each corner has the right to access the entire land. We call it the right to unlimited right of access to the property. The second ingredient is that each corner is entitled to require or entitled to ask for the profits that are derived from, profits if any derived from that property. The third aspect is that if one of the co-owners incurs expense for the maintenance of the property, held in co-ownership with other co-owners, he is entitled to ask for the contribution towards the maintenance expenses. So these are the three important rights which a co-owner is entitled to enjoy, right to unlimited access, right to ask for profit, right to require for the contribution of the expenses incurred for maintaining the property. Keep that in your mind. Now, regarding the concept of co-ownership, there are certain ingredients. Suppose A, B, C and D purchased an item of property in 2020. We say that there is a unity in time, unity of time because the co-ownership in relation to that property, vis-a-vis each co-owner commences at the same point of time. So we say that there is a unity of time the co-ownership has commenced at that time when they are jointly acquired the property. When we say that the property stands or is disturbed in the name of the three co-owners, the conclusion is that there is a unity of title. They jointly hold title over the property. If the property is jointly possessed by them or jointly mortgaged by them, or they jointly enjoy the suffrage from the property, we call it there is a unity of position. Then the third one, last one is they each person has got an interest over the entire land. We say that there is a unity of interest. Now the question arises when the property is jointly held by two persons, the question is, is it a joint ownership or a common ownership? Co-ownership can come by several methods. After the death of an owner of a property, the death of an owner of a property, right devolves on his legal areas. They jointly hold the property. Two or three persons may jointly purchase an item of property. They jointly hold the property. One person sells his item of property to a group of persons, all of them jointly hold the property. In the case of a death of a tenant, the right devolves on his legal areas. There is a devolution of tenancy in favor of the legal areas of the tenants. So there is a co-ownership tenancy right. Question is, what type of rights are they? Do they come under the concept of tenancy in common or joint tenancy? Now, if you look at this concept in detail, what you'll find is that the right of the, even though there will be unity of ownership, unity in possession, or unity in enjoyment of the property, the share of one person may differ from one instance to another. Now, how to distinguish between a joint tenancy and a co-tenancy in common? What are the salient features? What are the characteristics of those? As the term denotes, when two or more persons jointly hold the property, we call it a joint tenancy. When two or three co-owners hold the property in common, we call it tenancy in common. But still the question again comes, what exactly is the difference between tenancy in common and joint tenancy? The most important definition that I will tell you is that, or the most important, the distribution factor is that in a case where properties are held by persons jointly, the share of each co-owner may differ from person to person. Say, for example, three persons hold a property in ownership. Each may have an equivalent right over the property, one third, one third, and one third. Or it may be case where one person has got 25% right over the property, another person, third person, second person has got 50% right over the property, the third has got 25% or two other making 100. So in every co-ownership property, the share of one corner may vary from one to 99 or even 100. Now, as I make it more clear, as soon as situation were in, three persons jointly purchase a property. And the term of assignment only says that we have jointly purchased the property. There is absolutely no indication as to what is the individual share held by each person. Assume a different situation were in. Three persons purchase an item of property and they say that each will have equal right over the property or one third share of the property. These, in the case of both, there is one distinct feature. That feature is that in the case of the first instance which I told you that three persons jointly purchase a property without specifying the share. It's a clear case of a joint property. Whereas, the second example which I told you it is a case of a transparency in common. In other words, in the first instance, each person has got an entire right over the entire extent of land and they hold each person, hold it jointly with other person. The second is a case were in. Three persons having equal share enjoy the property in common. In both instances, the property, they enjoy the entire property till a physical partition is affected. Till the ownership property is broken by means and bounds and divide among the three persons, the corners. So, what is the significance of joint ownership? I think the significance is very clear. In the case of a joint ownership, the right of a corner is complete or 100% each corner, we can say is a joint owner has got complete right over the property and his right is not specified or limited. Whereas, in the case of a corner ship, the transparency in common, the individual share of each corner is specified. Though they can have a common enjoyment of the property. The common feature in both cases is that there may be a unity in title, there may be unity in possession, unity in enjoyment, but in the case of a common ownership, the share of each person is distinct, clear and stipulated. Whereas, in the case of a joint ownership, there is no such a stipulation. So, I told you initially that the concept of joint ownership and tenancy, joint tenancy and tenancy in common are substantially distinct and fundamentally different. Naturally, the consequence also follow. Though I've come across several decisions clarifying the distinction between joint tenancy and tenancy in common. One important decision which I will refer to your purpose is an Orissa decision, an old, comparatively old decision. It is Sridhar Ghoshay. Sridhar Ghoshay, G-O-S-H-E versus Hari Mohan Sahu. A year 1964, Orissa 141. That's the decision wherein I found that the distinction between joint tenancy and tenancy in common have been very clearly narrated and made out. The first distinguishing feature between joint tenancy and tenancy in common is that the mode of creation of the right is different in both cases. Joint tenancy arises in cases wherein grant is made in favor of several persons and there is no word in the document creating the right indicating that the grantees are to take separate interest over the property. Or in other words, joint tenancy arises over it. Right is created in favor of two or more persons without stipulating their separate share. Say, for example, three persons jointly purchasing a property. The question is, what is the individual share of the property of each person? As long as there is no indication in the purchase deal or the document by which the right is created, it can only remain as a joint tenancy. Whereas, when the grantees are directed by an assignment or by a document, grantees are directed to hold the property in moieties or in separate share. It's a case of tenancy in common. Say, for example, three persons purchase an item of property and the purchase deal stipulates that each will have one third right over the property. It is not a case of joint tenancy, but it's a clear case of tenancy in common because the share of each person is clear and separate. But there is a unity of ownership. There is a unity of title. There is a unity of possession. There is a unity in time also. But in the first instance, the share is not stipulated whereas in the case of tenancy in common, the share of each person is stipulated. As I told you earlier, it may vary from one to 99. Once it becomes 100% of each, as far as each person is concerned, it becomes a joint tenancy. So that the concept is totally different. Three persons joined or two or more persons jointly holding a property and three persons having definitely tried to the property and joined the property in common, this is the distinction between tenancy in common and joint tenancy. Now under the English law, the general principle is that unless there is a word of, we call it word of sovereigns, unless there is a word of sovereigns in the document, in the title deed, each courtship property will be deemed to be a joint ownership. Now to decide whether property held by corners is joined or in common, we have to find out how the right is stipulated in the document. If there is any indication in the document by which their rights are created, by which the right of each person is sought to be subordinated from each other, under the English law as I told you, it is a word of sovereigns by which rights are segregated, rights are separated. Then we call it a tenancy in common. Father executing a settlement deed, stating that after my death, of the high idea of I assigned the property to be enjoyed by my children jointly, share not determined, naturally all will have to enjoy the property jointly. Each can have a full access over the entire land, each is entitled to have the share, enjoy the property, et cetera. But once a word of sovereigns is indicated, clarified in the document, it becomes a tenancy in common. In the absence of any word of sovereigns, the relation has to be deemed to be a case of tenancy in common. So that is the first important aspect of joint tenancy. And we say that the most expressive words used is that in a joint tenancy, joint tenancy have one and same interest, accruing from one and the same document of conveyance, commencing at one and the same time and held by one and the same person having undivided process of the property. This is how nicely the concept of joint tenancy is described. In the joint tenancy, joint tenants have one and the same interest over the property. All the joint holders have similar rights over the entire property. It accrues to them from one and the same document. It commends at the same time and it is held by all of them at the same and enjoy one and the same undivided process of the property. This is the one of the most crucial distinct feature of joint tenancy and tenancy in common. That is the mode of creation of rights is different. The second distinction is that joint tenancy can be created by act of parties and not by operation of law. Whereas tenancy in common can be created by operation of law also. I'll give you one typical example of, so that I will, before that I'll just give you, so that a joint tenancy can be created by an inner document, by a settlement deed, by a deed of conveyance, by executing a trust deed. One typical example of creation of a right of joint tenancy is contemplated under section 76 of the Indian Trust Act. Indian Trust Act under section 76 says that in case of death of one trustee or he ceases to be entitled to continue as a trustee, the trust does not come to an end but it continues in relation to the remaining trustees. So that is the important concept of joint tenancy which distinguishes it from a tenancy in common. That is, joint tenancy can be created only by act of parties. Whereas the common tenancy in common can be created by, not by operation of law, whereas common tenancy can be created by operation of law also, apart from other methods of creation of it. The third aspect of, third important point that distinguishes a joint tenancy from a common tenancy in common is the consequences that follow, the incidents that follow from this relation. Take the example of a tenancy in common. What happens if a co-owner dives? Can a co-owner assign his share to another person? And can that as I need get into this scholarship relation along with the remaining scholarship? Now the most distribution feature of joint tenancy is the concept of survivorship. What is meant by the concept of survivorship? In the case of a joint tenancy, I told you, the right of each person co-owner is not stipulated. So that all the co-owners or the joint owners are holding the property jointly having absolute right over the property or entire right over the whole property. So what happens when a co-owner in case of a joint tenancy dies? Will his share go to his legal heirs or to the other joint owners? I told you the concept is survivorship. Normally a legal heir can succeed to the state of a co-owner if that co-owner has got a distinct share over the property. In the case of a joint tenancy, since the joint holder has no stipulated right over the property, there is nothing work to be succeeded to his legal heirs. So consequently, on depth of a joint holder, his share will merge with the remaining rights or remaining joint holders. So if there are three persons holding joint tenancy on depth of one person, his share will his right, not share, his right will merge with the remaining two persons. It is irrespective of, it is not withstanding a will executed by the person who has died, expired. Even if he executes a will and says that the joint property, my share right over the joint property will go to my legal heirs, not withstanding that will, the property will completely best with the remaining joint holders. So the remaining two persons on the depth of one among them, again the property will completely merge with the last person, the surviving person. Then the question comes, on his death what will happen? It's very clear, on his death, or at the time of death, he has acquired 100% right over the whole property. So naturally his share, that property will best with his legal heirs. So this is the concept of survivorship that is the most important ingredient of joint tenancy, which is absent in the case of tenancy in common. In tenancy in common, what happens is that, on the depth of a person holding the property, the right of that person, on the depth of the legal heirs, the legal heirs of that person. It will not merge by survivorship, because the reason is that his share is distinct. The only difference is that the property remains as a ownership property, it has not been divided. It has not been physically demarcated and separated. Then another thing is, another consequential ingredient is that a co-owner, in the case of a tenancy in common, is entitled to assign his right, sell his right. Mortgage his share subject to the law applicable in the case mortgages. In principle it is possible so that this is the most important distinction between the joint ownership for joint tenancy and tenancy in common. There is one more thing is that, one more distinction feature is that in the case of tenancy in common, it can be commenced at different times. But in the case of a tenancy, joint tenancy, it can commence only at the same time by a same document and it will continue till the remaining. So that these are the distribution features of joint tenancy and tenancy in common. The mode of origin is different. The method of creation is by act of party. In the case of joint tenancy, it is by act of parties and not by operation of law. Thirdly, the most important distribution feature of joint tenancy is that of principle of survivorship. On the death of a co-owner holding a joint tenancy, his right will merge with the survivors. Whereas in the case of a tenancy in common, his share will devolve upon his legal aids as per the law of succession or if he has executed a will, as per the law, as per the will. It will be testament to the succession and not an interstate succession. So these are the important distribution characteristics of joint tenancy and tenancy in common. Now is it possible to convert a joint tenancy to a common tenancy? Under the English law, a person holding joint tenancy is entitled to convert the relationship into a tenancy in common by giving notice to the remaining joint owners. Say for example, if A, B and C are jointly holding the property by joint tenancy and if A wants to discontinue that relationship, he is entitled to give a notice to B and C and thereupon the relation between A, B and C jointly will be that of a tenancy in common. Naturally all consequences will follow. So the same principle should continue in the case of inter law also. Now we come to the next important topics. That is regarding the Hindu law, Nidakshara law as well as the concept of joint tenancy and also the Indian succession act. As I told you earlier, the concept under the English law is that is to presume that in a title deed, in the absence of word of severance or nothing in the absence of anything to indicate that relationship should be tenancy in common. It will generally be deemed to be a joint tenancy and this concept is accepted under the Indian succession act by virtue of section 106 of the Indian succession act. So that under section 106 of the Indian succession act, it says that in the case of a will executed by a Christian, Parsi or a Muslim or a person governed by the Indian succession act, in the absence of any term in the document it will be deemed to be a case of joint tenancy. Section 106 says that in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary the persons to whom the property is gifted or assigned under the Indian succession act can hold the property jointly. Thereby the concept of joint tenancy is accepted under section 106 of the Indian succession act. Now what is the corresponding provision under the Hindu law? Under the Hindu law, there are few decisions which I will refer to. The first decision is an old pre-counsel decision Yogeshwar Narayan Dev versus Ramchand Dat. Yogeshwar Narayan Dev versus Ramchand Dat. 1923 Indian appeal, 37 pre-counsel. That was the case where the question arose regarding the concept of joint tenancy under the Hindu law of succession. It was laid down by the pre-counsel that the principle of joint tenancy is unknown to Hindu law except in the case of a co-personnel between the members of a Hindu undivided family so that it was said that joint tenancy is unknown to the Hindu law except in the case of a co-personnel in a Hindu undivided family. This decision was followed in a subsequent pre-counsel decision in the year 1933. That is Ramchand Dat. Ramchand Dat versus Naurangilal, N-A-U-R-A-N-G-I. Naurangilal, A-R-1933 pre-counsel, 72. A-R-1933 pre-counsel, 72. In this case, the pre-counsel reaffirmed the law laid down in Yogeshwar Narayan Dev's case. The same question came up before the Supreme Court in yet another decision in the year 1968. That is in B. Venkada Krishnarau versus B. Satyavadi A-R-1968 Supreme Court 751. That was the case where a Hindu lady brought two children as her foster sons. She was an unmarried woman. She executed a will by which her properties were bequeathed in favor of two children, two foster children. It was also provided that after the death of two foster children, the rights will, they can enjoy during lifetime. After them, the entire rights would devolve on the grandchildren. Grandchildren filed a civil suit for a declaration that all of them have acquired right equally over the property. So the question that came up before the trial court which was considered up to the Supreme Court was whether property was held by the legal heirs jointly or in common. Whether it was a case of joint currency or in the case of a currency in common. Supreme Court followed the early two pre-counsel decisions and held that joint currency was unknown to the Hindu law except in the case of a co-personary between members of a Hindu undivided family. It was also provided that it was also held by the Supreme Court that the testator in Hatha Testament did not indicate that each person, each child should take specific share. Property was as I bequeathed to them jointly. So the Supreme Court held following the early two pre-counsel decisions that it has to be held to be a tenancy in common. There was no indication that it has to be by acquire it has to be held jointly. So that is the law. Whereas under section 106 of the Indian succession act it is specifically provided that the legacy will not lapse if one of the two among the negatives dies pre-diseases that the testator. Or in other words under section 106 of the Indian succession act if a person bequeaths a property in favour of two or more persons and one among them dies or pre-diseases of the testator still it will continue. The property will rest with the remaining will jointly so that there is a concept of joint ownership. Recognised under section 106 of the Indian succession act. So this is one important unit. Now the question will come in lot many cases. This the impact of joint tenancy and tenancy in common have a reason. One important aspect is in the case of a tenancy in the case of death of a tenant. I referred to a tenancy in a landlord tenor relationship. Suppose building is let out to a tenant and during the existence of the tenancy relationship the tenant dies. Naturally the tenancy will devolve on the lyrids. Are they holding the property jointly or is it a case of tenancy in common? In several cases this question has come up especially in the background of not much concern whether they have got any joint tenancy or tenancy in common. The question is suppose if notice of someone is served on one of the tenants, one of the legal aids of original tenant that amount to a complete service on others have come up. Incidentally the courts were caught upon to decide whether the status of the legal aids of the tenant are they holding the property jointly or they are holding the property in common along with the remaining persons. This has come up for consideration in few cases. I will refer to that. One of the important decision is in H.C. Pondain versus G.C. Paul. 1989 3 SCC 77. The question came up whether the tenancy on the death of the original tenant whether the tenancy arrangement will devolve on this legal aids as joint tenancy or tenancy in common. In this background, the Supreme Court held that the incidents of tenancy are the same as enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy and there is no division of premises, there is no division of relationship, there is no division of rent also so that Supreme Court conceptually held that in the case of death of a tenant who has taken a building on rent, the tenancy relationship will devolve on the legal aids and they will hold it as a single unit jointly and the relationship will be a joint tenancy and not a tenancy in common because there cannot be division of tenancy arrangement, there cannot be division of the property, there cannot be division of the rent also. This was the law that was laid out by Supreme Court H.C. Ponday versus G.C. Paul P.A.U.L. 1989, 3 S.G.C. 77. Subsequently, another branch of the Supreme Court ratified it in Harris-Tunton versus A.D.M. Harris-Tunton versus A.D.M. 1995, A.R. S.C. 676. An answer to my question in relation to this relationship arose in subsequent few decisions. The question that I referred to earlier was on the death of a tenant who has taken a building on rent from the landlord two questions may arise. What is the relationship between what is the nature of tenancy held by the legal hands of the original tenant? I mentioned just now that these two Supreme Court decisions confirm that legal hands are holding the relationship as joint tenants, holding the tenancy as joint tenants and not tenants in common. Answer to my question is if notice is served on one of the legal hands and one of the legal heir of the original tenant is brought on record only and notice is served on him, whether that will amount to a valid service of notice and a further consequential valid order of eviction in relation to other joint holders. The concept is very clear. They are holding the property as joint owners in joint tenancy. Based on that concept, the Supreme Court in few decisions held that even if since the legal hands are holding in joint tenancy each person has got a complete right over the entire land and he represents others also. So unlike in the case of a tenancy in common where each person is entitled a notice and each person should be brought on record as the legal representative of the tenant in the case of a joint tenancy. The Supreme Court held that notice on one court joint old one tenant will amount one legal heir will amount to notice on the remaining. I'll give a few decisions on the same point which has been consistently been followed by the Supreme Court. One is Buddha Sen, BUDDH Buddha Sen versus Shri La Chandra Agarwal AR 1978, Allahabad, page 88. It was held that in a joint tenancy notice to one legal heir one joint tenant will be sufficient will be notice to the remaining tenants. The same was followed in by the Supreme Court decision in Suresh Kumar Kohli who is the legal representative in Suresh Kumar Kohli Suresh Kumar Kohli versus Ragesh Jain 2018 AR SC 2708 AR 2018 SC 2708 AR 2018 SC 2708 The third decision is Badri Narayanan Ja Badri Narayanan Ja versus Rameshwar Dayal Singh AR 1951 SC 186 AR 1951 SC 186 AR 1951 SC 186 and the last decision in that series is one which I referred to earlier Harish Tantan versus ADM AR 1995 SC 676 So in all these decisions the law was settled was clear that a notice to one one tenant holding as joint tenant consequent to the depth of the original tenant in the line of tenancy arrangement will be sufficient because notice to him will be deemed to be a notice to the remaining persons So these are the important aspects of tenancy in common and joint tenancy initially I have told you that there is one more concept of tenancy by entirety Tenancy by entirety is a unique concept it's a concept by which it's also a tenancy by which when a husband and wife jointly purchase the property it will be deemed to be a tenancy by entirety Suppose they purchase the property without mentioning that they have purchased it jointly or whether they are holding it in common et cetera mere fact that it's a purchase by husband and wife that will fall within a third concept recognized under the English law and sparingly used in India also denoted by the term tenancy by entirety virtually it will be an instance of tenancy by joint tenancy as long as the matchmaking relationship subsists they will be holding it as joint tenancy so each spouse has got a 100% interest over the entire property and individual property over the property as if he is a full owner of the property so 100% interest and an undivided interest over the whole property as if he is a full owner now it is considered as a case of joint tenancy so these are the important aspects now before concluding I will also tell you one more thing though Chancellor property act deals with these the tragedy of immobile property this concept of joint tenancy is not specifically mentioned referred to under the any of the provisions of that though there are two provisions which incidentally indicate co-ownership property not incidentally straight away directly referred to the co-ownership property that is section 44 of the Chancellor property act and section 45 of the Chancellor property act section 44 deals with Chancellor of co-ownership property of a co-owner to another person clearly it can only be it can only be a case of a tenancy in common it says that a co-owner is entitled to assign his right transfer his right to another person and he with the person who to whom it is so assigned will acquire all the rights enjoyed by that person and section 44 has got one exception the exception is that as you all know if the property held so assigned a share assigned by the by a co-owner will not entitle entitle the purchaser of the co-ownership right to claim residence along with the family residing in that property an undivided family his only remedy will be to seek for partition 45 is regarding the sharing of the income so section 44 and section 45 in Toto refers to the transfers affected by co-ownership substantially these are the provisions relating to the co-ownership property generally divided into tenancy by joint tenancy and tenancy in common I hope these provisions will will help you and now the session is open for discussion any doubts anybody who has got any doubt you can open it I'll try to answer yes sir one question is can a landlord discriminate between some tenants by giving them an alternate accommodation and while the others are not being given can the landlord discriminate between the tenants to some he gives an alternate accommodation to leave that premises while to others they are not given that depends on depends on the question now see you will not that straight away effect see under the rent control act tenancy can I am referring to a tenancy under the rent control act governed by the rent control act he can be with the specific grounds only one of the ground he can be alternate accommodation the ground can only be reconstruction reconstruction will be permitted by the court only based on on a condition that they will be accommodated again so that it depends on what ground he asks for and if he discriminates without any valid reason will it not affect the bond effects of the landlord himself that will be too risky proposition for the landlord this is by on the youtube sir can one tenant by entirety be obstensible owner of the property if consideration is paid by one tenant and property is recorded in the name of other tenant no no no he cannot be because that affects the landlord relationship we cannot be the obstensible owner I mean a legal heir can that person clarify whether he refers to a legal heir of a tenant or a court tenant a person can one tenant be in entirety be an obstensible owner of the property if consideration is paid by one tenant and property is recorded in the name of other tenant a person of obstensible owner will not apply because obstensible ownership under the hands of property can arise only when one person is holding the property with a consent express or implied consent of the owner in the case of a tenancy arrangement there is no there cannot be an obstensible ownership because the tenant it is the relation is that of a landlord and a tenant and not as a purchase owner and the agent which is the instance arising in the obstensible ownership this is Abhishek but is the property purchased by the Hindu husband and why is jointly we considered as a joint tenancy or tenancy by entirety it can only be tenancy by entirety ok this is we are two brothers purchase property under different sale leads and build a house in the property jointly single house can that be a joint tenancy no no no no it is a tenancy in common because two persons have purchased the property at two different points of time two different points of time so that in the case of a joint tenancy the most important aspect that should commence at the same point of time the same point of time the same point of time at the same point of time continue together and there should be. Whereas in this case two persons purchase two different properties they hold it jointly so it can only be a tendency in common. So before we end up if we have to give a salient feature of a joint tendency and tendency in common how do you how do you sum it up? I clarified by a single point in the case of a joint tendency the individual share of the person holding it is not stipulated. That means his share is not stipulated he is he two persons jointly purchased it without mentioning what is a share it's a clear case of joint tendency. That's the signifying where if the share of any person is indicated in the document or purchase or the title it can only be a tendency in common. This is the broad distinction all the differences follow from that. Is it clear? I think that I am clear. Shivam Trivedi can a foreign citizen being a legal here be included as a co-owner and can he claim a tendency? He is entitled to subject to the I do not know whether there is a he is from a country from which he is not recognized otherwise generally I feel that there is nothing wrong in the foreign economy problem only thing is that he has to get permission on the self-government. Right sir. So thank you everyone who has stayed connected with us in this legal journey sharing processes by persons of women's knowledge like Justice Sunil Thomas and we once again wish him all the best for the new journey which he has. Okay. And on Wednesday we have a session by Justice Roshan Dalvi a former judge that is domestic violence substantive law and actual practice you stay connected with us at 9pm everyone stay safe stay blessed and we are just receiving keep on receiving the messages and awesome session and a brilliant session. Thank you.