Back
Karnataka High Court
AMAR TRANSPORT COMPANY, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
MUTHU GANAPATHY - Respondent
Decided On : 05-23-05
R.F.A. : 1256 of 2004
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - Section 107 -Tenant at sufferance -Determination of tenancy by efflux of time -Tenant without consent of landlord continuing in possession -Such tenant is only a tenant at sufferance -But, a tenant continuing in possession with consent of landlord stands on a different footing.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: In a case where originally tenant came into possession of the property in a lawful manner, but lease was determined by efflux of time, lessee continuing in possession thereafter in contravention of terms of lease and despite absence of acquiescence by lessor, such possession by the lessee neither legal nor lawful but he is only a tenant at sufferance. The assent of the landlord to the continuance of the tenancy after determination of tenancy would create a new tenancy. The possession of a tenant who is ceased to be a tenant is protected by law, although he may not have a right to continue in possession after termination of tenancy is possession is juridical. It is nothing but a tenant at sufferance who wrongfully continues in possession after extinction of lawful title. The tenancy at sufferance does not create the relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, distinction must be drawn between a tenant continuing in possession after determination of lease without the consent of the landlord and the tenant doing so with the landlord s consent. Therefore, the tenant who continues in possession after determination of the lease without the assent of the landlord is a tenant by sufferance which is nothing but a tenancy at will by the assent of the landlord. But the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established until the rent was paid and accepted. The lessee holding over with the consent of a lessor is in a better position than a mere tenant at will.
Cases Referred:
AIR 1980 MP 8; AIR 1988 SC 1365.
Followed: AIR 1958 Mysore 113; AIR 1969 SC 1187; AIR 1959 A. P. 346; 1995(5) SCC 698; AIR 1952 SC 23.
Tenant in possession after determination of lease
LANDLORD AND TENANT - Tenant in possession after determination of lease -Tenant continuing in possession even after determination of lease without and with consent of landlord -They stand on different footing. See. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Section 107 -Tenant at sufferance.
Splitting of tenancy
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - Section 109 -Splitting of tenancy -Same tenant is tenant of two portions of same premises -Does not result in splitting up of unity and integrity of tenancy -Tenant himself insisted for two lease agreements for two portions of the same premises -Now cannot contend that, two suits in respect of same premises are not maintainable.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: In law, there is no bar or prohibition to give lease of one premises to different tenants. It is not a case where there is only one tenancy and landlord is splitting up the unity and integrity of the tenancy. The tenancy was split up at the very beginning of the tenancy. In other words, if there were two tenants in respect of two different portions of the same premises, it would not be a bar to enter into such agreement of lease. Just because, the very same tenant is a tenant of two portions of the same premises, it will not result in splitting up the unity and integrity of tenancy. Strictly speaking, even assistance from this Section need not be taken as at the instance of the appellant herein two different lease deeds in respect of the same premises (two portions) came to be executed. Having demanded and understood that there has to be two lease agreements is respect of two portions of the same premises, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to contend that filing of the two suits in respect of the same premises is not permissible. Therefore, the two suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff are maintainable and there is no splitting up of unity and integrity of the tenancy.
Tenant in possession after determination of lease
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 - Section 3(n) -Tenant in possession after determination of lease -Tenant continuing in possession even after determination of lease without and with consent of landlord -They stand on different footing. See. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Section 107.
Maintainability of two suits in respect of same premises
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 - Section 27 -Maintainability of two suits in respect of same premises -Same tenant is tenant of two portions of same premises -Two different lease agreements entered into for the purpose -Tenant cannot plead that, landlord cannot maintain two suits in respect of same premises and contend that, it amounts to splitting up of unity and integrity of tenancy. See, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Section 109.
Maintainability of two suits in respect of same premises
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 - Section 27 -Maintainability of two suits in respect of same premises -Same tenant is tenant of two portions of same premises -Two different lease agreements entered into for the purpose -Tenant cannot plead that, landlord cannot maintain two suits in respect of same premises and contend that, it amounts to splitting up of unity and integrity of tenancy. See, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Section 109.
Maintainability of two suits in respect of same premises
LANDLORD AND TENANT - Maintainability of two suits in respect of same premises -Same tenant is tenant of two portions of same premises -Two different lease agreements entered into for the purpose as insisted by tenant -Tenant cannot plead that, landlord cannot maintain two suits in respect of same premises and contend that, it amounts to splitting up of unity and integrity of tenancy.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: In law, there is no bar or prohibition to give lease of one premises to different tenants. It is not a case where there is only one tenancy and landlord is splitting up the unity and integrity of the tenancy. The tenancy was split up at the very beginning of the tenancy. In other words, if there were two tenants in respect of two different portions of the same premises, it would not be a bar to enter into such agreement of lease. Just because, the very same tenant is a tenant of two portions of the same premises, it will not result in splitting up the unity and integrity of tenancy. Strictly speaking, even assistance from this Section need not be taken as at the instance of the appellant herein two different lease deeds in respect of the same premises (two portions) came to be executed. Having demanded and understood that there has to be two lease agreements is respect of two portions of the same premises, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to contend that filing of the two suits in respect of the same premises is not permissible. Therefore, the two suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff are maintainable and there is no splitting up of unity and integrity of the tenancy.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was, the appellant herein became a tenant under a lease deed dated 1-12-1999 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/ -. Eviction Petition No. 922 of 1990 was filed for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide use and occupation of the premises. But however, said suit was dismissed as not maintainable. Right from the beginning, the appellant did not pay the rents and as on the date of filing of the suit, he was due in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards arrears of rent and after adjusting the arrears of rent from the advance paid by the tenant, still, the defendant/appellant was due in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit. With these averments, he sought eviction of the tenant. Before filing the suit, a notice dated 20-2-2001 was also issued to the defendant which was not replied.
( 3 ) AS against this the defendant, inter alia, appeared and contended that the suit itself was not maintainable as the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. For many decades, he is carrying on the business in the suit schedule property as a tenant. All the rents with periodical enhancements as and when demanded by the respondent/plaintiff was paid right from the time of predecessors in title of the plaintiff. The termination of tenancy is not in accordance with law and after expiry of lease period as per agreement dated 1-12-1999, the defendant continued to be in possession of the premises. For the best reason known to the plaintiff, two lease deeds came to be take in respect of the entire premises and the appellant did not object for the same in order to maintain cordial relationship between the parties. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as advance and the appellant was to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month from January 2001 onwards out of the monthly rent of rs. 2,000/- till such time a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is adjusted towards the rent out of the advance amount, leaving balance of Rs. 20,000/- as security deposit. This would belie the claim of the plaintiff that the lease was only for a period of 11 months. The suit is premature, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.
( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: (a) Whether the plaintiff proves the termination of tenancy in accordance with law? (b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ejectment of suit property? (c) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable as contended in written statement? (d) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in arrears of rent and damages of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of suit till the date of vacation of the suit premises? (e) To what decree/order?
( 5 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs and so also defendants, the parties were examined as P. W. 1 and D. W. 1 and several documents came to be marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 6 and Exs. D. 1 and D. 2 respectively.
( 6 ) AS could be gathered from the pleadings, the contention of the appellant is that the very termination of tenancy is not in accordance with law and as such the suit is not maintainable. For this contention, he advances arguments on several grounds. The first and foremost contention was of single premises and there cannot be two suits as it amounts to severance of the tenancy. Therefore, single suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiff. The next contention was Ex. D. 1 the receipt for having received Rs. 50,000/- as advance would indicate that out of rent of Rs. 2,000/- payable every month, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (out of advance amount of Rs. 50,000/-) has t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
