A contractual tenancy continues to exist even after the destruction of the premises and the tenant is entitled to occupy the newly constructed premises at the same place as the original premises.

Headnote:
TENANCY - CONTRACTUAL TENANCY - DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES - RIGHT TO OCCUPY NEW CONSTRUCTION - JURISDICTION - COURT OF SMALL CAUSES - MISJOINDER OF PARTIES - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - RENT RESTRICTION ACT - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES (CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Where a landlord puts up a new construction on the same land as was under old damaged house the hold tenants as contractual tenants would become tenants in respect of new premises and/or tenements situated at about the same places where the original tenements were situated.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners were tenants of a house owned by Respondent No.1. The house was destroyed in a flood and the Respondent No.1 commenced to construct a new building at the site of the old house. The Petitioners filed a suit claiming a declaration that their tenancies had not been extinguished and they were entitled to occupy as tenants in newly constructed tenements at the place equivalent to the original tenements occupied by them.
Finding of the Court:

The trial Court held that the Petitioners continued to remain tenants and were entitled to possession of equivalent premises in the new building. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court by holding that the suit was barred by misjoinder of parties and further that as the new building had not been completed it was difficult to say which premises could be given in possession even if it was held that the Petitioners as tenants had such right.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners are tenants of the suit premises? 2. Whether the Petitioners can ask for possession of the suit premises? 3. If yes, what is the standard rent of the suit premises? 4. Is the suit barred by misjoinder of parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A lease and a tenancy involves transfer of rights in immovable properties and the interest transferred will not revert to the landlord in ordinary circumstances except upon termination of such interests in accordance with the provisions in Section 106 read with Sections 111, 113 and the other relevant sections in Chapter 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. The destruction of a house does not by itself determine the tenancy of the land on which it stands. 3. A tenant who is willing to satisfy the condition of being ready and willing to perform his part of the covenants in the lease and/or otherwise agreed between the parties must always be entitled to relief of specific performance in cases in which there is no physical impediment in granting such reliefs. 4. The right of occupation is incidental to the contract of tenancy which has continued to exist between the parties. The tenants would be entitled to specific performance of their rights in respect of the construction that will be put up.
Final Decision: The appellate decree dated 7th August, 1964 is set aside. The decree passed by the trial Court on August 20, 1963 is restored.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

A contractual tenancy persists even after the destruction of the premises, and the tenant retains the right to occupy the newly constructed premises at the same location as the original premises [judgement_subject] (!) .
When a landlord constructs a new building on the same land as the damaged or destroyed old building, the existing tenants, as contractual tenants, are entitled to become tenants of the new premises or tenements situated approximately at the same locations as their original tenements [judgement_subject] (!) .
The destruction of a building does not automatically terminate the tenancy rights of the tenant, provided the tenancy was not terminated through proper legal means such as notice to quit [judgement_subject] (!) .
Tenants who are willing to perform their contractual obligations are entitled to seek specific performance of their rights, including the right to occupy the new premises constructed by the landlord [judgement_subject] (!) .
The right of occupation is an incidental part of the tenancy contract, and this right continues unless explicitly terminated through lawful procedures. The mere destruction of the premises does not extinguish the tenancy rights if the tenancy was not legally terminated [judgement_subject] (!) .
The jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes is competent to decide disputes related to tenancy rights, including those arising from the destruction and reconstruction of premises, provided the relationship of landlord and tenant is established [judgement_subject] (!) .
The suit filed by tenants claiming their rights to occupy rebuilt premises is valid and not barred by misjoinder of parties, as the core issue relates to their tenancy rights arising from the same transaction of destruction and reconstruction [judgement_subject] (!) .
The existence of new construction on the land does not negate the tenants' rights to occupy the premises, especially when the tenants are willing to perform their contractual obligations and the reconstruction aligns with their original rights [judgement_subject] (!) .
The law recognizes that tenants' rights to reoccupy or claim possession of premises, even if the original building is destroyed, are protected provided they have not been lawfully terminated and are willing to fulfill their contractual obligations [judgement_subject] (!) .
The appellate decree was set aside, and the original trial court’s decree was restored, affirming the tenants’ rights to occupy the reconstructed premises based on their contractual tenancy and the ongoing relationship between the parties [final_decision].

These points reflect the legal principles and factual findings from the document, emphasizing that destruction of premises does not automatically terminate tenancy rights if proper legal procedures are not followed, and tenants have a right to occupy reconstructed premises under certain conditions.

JUDGMENT - K.K. Desai, J.

1. This is a petition on behalf of the original plaintiffs in Small Causes Court Civil Suit No. 1543 of 1962 instituted at Poona. Respondent No. 1 is the original defendant-landlord.

2. The Respondent No.1 owns a house bearing City Survey No. 24 situate at Somwar Peth, Poona. The house consisted of different small tenants on the ground and two floors. The Petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 occupied different tenements at monthly rents. In consequence of the Panshet floods which occurred on 12th July 1961, the house was flooded with waters and excessively damaged. By a notice given in August 1961, the Municipal Corporation of Poona directed the Respondent No.1 to remove first and second floors of the house as being dangerous to human life. The tenants claimed that the notice should be withdrawn but the Corporation refused to withdraw the notice. A large part of the house fell down in November 1961 and the Municipal Corporation ultimately removed the house to level of the plinth and called upon the Respondent No.1 to remove the debris. After the debris was removed, the Respondent No.1 completed the formalities of having a plan sanctioned and commenced to construct a new building at the site of the old house. The Petitioners thereupon filed the above suit in the end of April 1962, claiming a declaration that their tenancies had not been extinguished and they were entitled to occupy as tenants in newly constructed tenements at the place equivalent to the original tenements occupied by them. They further claimed mandatory injunction directing the Respondent No.1 to deliver possession to each of them of equivalent tenement at the same places as the old tenements. They further claimed permanent injunction for restraining the Respondent No.1 from letting out the tenements in the new building to outsiders-third parties. Having regard to the contention made by the Respondent No.1, four main issues were raised by the trial Court as follows : -

"(1) Whether the Plaintiffs are tenants of the suit premises?

(2) Whether the Plaintiffs can ask for possession of the suit premises ?

(3) If yes, what is the standard rent of the suit premises? .........................

(4) Is the suit barred by misjoinder of parties?"

The trial Court held that the plaintiffs continued to remain tenants and were entitled to possession of equivalent premises in the new building, it was not necessary to fix standard rent and the suit was not barred by misjoinder of parties. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court by holding that the suit was barred by misjoinder of parties and further that as the new building had not been completed it was difficult to say which premises could be given in possession even if it was held that the Petitioners as tenants had such right. The suit for mandatory injunction was, therefore, clearly premature and further that the declaration claimed by the Petitioners to be tenants was also premature. These Petitioners filed the present writ petition for challenging the correctness of the appellate judgment of the lower appellate Court.

3. Mr. Pratap for the Petitioners has contended that it was not the case of the Respondent No.1 that he had by notice to quit terminated the contractual tenancies of the petitioners. The mere fact that the house collapsed and became destroyed, was insufficient to make a finding that the Petitioners had not continued to be contractual tenants of the Respondent No.1. He further submitted that the correct position in law was that whenever a landlord put up any new construction on the same land as was under old damaged house the hold tenants as contractual tenants would become tenants in respect of new premises and/or tenements situated at about the same places where the original tenements were situated. He, therefore, submitted that the declaration as granted by the trial Court was correct. He further submitted that having regard to the facts on which there was no dispute, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document