The judgment established the legal principle that encroached areas become part of the leased property and must be delivered to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, based on Section 108 (d) of the Transfer of Property Act and the principle of encroachment.

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the petitioner herein on various grounds, important of them being that the premises in occupation of the tenant is required for his son to start a small scale industry; that the tenant has acquired suitable alternative premises; this petition was resisted by the tenant by filing a detailed objection statement, denying generally all the petition averments including the ground of eviction viz. , that the premises is required for landlord's own use; besides the above, the tenant objected, for the landlord in including the adjoining open space, also as the "petition schedule premises", as the same belonged to him. On the basis of the pleadings, the parties went to trial and adduced evidence; the landlord in support of his case examined himself besides examining his son and three more witnesses, he also produced about 55 documents; similarly the respondent had examined himself and produced about 15 documents. The learned judge of the small causes in appreciation of the evidence led by the parties has allowed the eviction petition filed under Section 21 (l) (h) and (p) of the act while dismissing the petition filed under Section 21 (l) (a) (c) and (o ). In so far as the objection of the tenant for the landlord in including the "adjacent open space also, as the schedule premises" the learned judge has held that "though the said open space was not the subject-matter of lease between the parties, as the same also belongs to the landlord and the tenant has encroached the same, by the principle of "accession to the leased property" the tenant is liable to be evicted from the same".

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the same the tenant has preferred this petition.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant submitted firstly that the trial court has committed an error of law in ordering eviction in respect of not only the leased property but also in respect of the adjoining vacant area on the northern and eastern side of the leased property which admittedly was not the subject-matter of the original lease; and belonged to him.

( 4 ) SECONDLY he submitted that the learned judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in holding that the requirement of the landlord is 'reasonable and bona fide'. So also the finding that the tenant has acquired suitable alternative premises.

( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the landlord while defending the impugned order submitted that even though what was leased originally to the tenant was an area of 12' x 42', the tenant having encroached upon the vacant land on the eastern and northern side belonging to him, he is liable to be evicted in respect of the said portion also along with the leased premises, having regard to the provision of Section 108 (d) of the Transfer Of Property Act.

( 6 ) THE facts relevant and necessary for appreciating the rival contentions are set out briefly as under: the landlord has filed the eviction petition in respect of premises no. 89, having a residential accommodation in an area of 42' x 12', and vacant land on the northern side of the premises stretching till the road and vacant land in the eastern side wherein the tenant has put up a workshed. The petitioner-tenant has admitted that the built up portion in the schedule in the area of 42' x 12' belongs to landlord and it was leased to him in the year 1966. In so far as the surrounding vacant land on the northern and eastern side he has denied the landlord's title in his objection statement, though during trial he has set up a title in himself. the landlord has traced his title to the vacant land on the eastern and northern side, by purchase from one radhabai, mother of srinivasa rao, vide exhibit p-1. The said srinivasa rao had inturn purchased from abdul sattarkhan vide exhibit p-2, the said property was also got converted after purchase by srinivasa rao vide exhibit p-3, later this property was also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document