फ्री मॉक टेस्‍ट देने के लिए लिंक पर https://examquiz4u.blogspot.com/2024/11/mp-high-court-jja-mock-test-2024.html क्लिक करें। that is the position as between the landlord and the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. This Court further held that the respondent acted on behalf of the tenants; he paid rent on behalf of his father and he accepted notice on behalf of all; in the circumstances the notice served under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the respondent was sufficient and it was a valid notice. The Respondent instituted writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court to challenge the order of the Scrutiny Committee and his termination from service. By a judgment dated 4 April 2014 the High Court noted that the Respondent was seeking only protection of his services and was willing to give up the claim of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. By its judgment, the High Court accepted the contention of the Respondent and held that he was entitled to protection of services with continuity while the management would be at liberty to withdraw such benefits as were granted after 28 September 2000. The employer moved a Special Leave Petition and in pursuance of an interim order dated 11 August 2014, the Respondent was reinstated in service and was granted further promotions. Eventually upon his superannuation on the Respondent was granted his terminal benefits including gratuity