Destruction of tenanted premises does not terminate tenancy rights under Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT

C.V. Bhadang, J -On 26/9/2006, this Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether, in view of the plea of the defendant in the written statement, that he constructed the suit shop at his own expense, on obtaining necessary permission from the previous owner and paid Rs.3/- monthly as ground rent, to its previous owner, it could be said that what was created in favour of the defendant was a lease or that it was a lease for building purposes?

2) Whether, in the absence of any plea in the Written statement to the effect that the defendant was a permanent lessee in respect of the suit portion of the land covered by the suit shop, the defendant could be held to be a permanent lessee of the same.?

3) Whether, upon the collapse of the suit shop, the defendant was entitled to reconstruct the same on the basis of the plea set up by him in the written statement to the effect that he constructed the suit structure with the permission of the landlady and was paying Rs.3/- by way of ground rent in respect of the land covered by the suit shop?

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: That the appellant (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No.146/98/E (Old Regular Civil Suit No.111/90/D) against the respondents for permanent injunction. The subject matter of dispute happens to be a land admeasuring 584 sq.mtrs bearing survey no.3/1 situated at Nerul Bardez-Goa (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). According to the appellant, he has purchased the suit property from one Surendra Pandhari Naik on 25/5/1981 and the sale deed is registered with the Sub Registrar at Panaji on 15/7/1982. The appellant had a tea shop in the suit property which was constructed by the appellant at his own expense and he was running the same for many years prior to the filing of the suit. Adjacent to the tea shop, there is also a store room./shop constructed by the predecessor, Mr. Surendra Naik.

This room/shop forms the subject matter of dispute and is hereinafter referred to as the "suit shop". According to the appellant, the suit shop was occupied by the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.10/-. It was contended that after the appellant purchased the suit shop, the defendants stopped paying rent and has deliberately demolished the suit shop so as to reconstruct the same without the consent of the appellant. It was also contended that the defendant had closed the shop since two years prior to the filing of the suit.

3. On 10/4/1990, the appellant noticed that the respondent had brought some construction material on the site which led the appellant to file the suit seeking injunction against the respondents from reconstructing the suit shop and from interfering with the suit property in any manner. The appellant had also filed an objection before the Village Panchayat of Verem and before the Panaji Planning and Development Authority, requesting them not to issue licence/No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the respondent for construction.

4. It appears that the plaint was subsequently amended and the appellant claimed that the respondent was occupying the suit shop on a leave and licence basis.

5. The respondent filed a written statement and resisted the claim. It was denied that the suit shop was constructed by the predecessor of the appellant. It was contended that the suit shop was constructed by the respondent at his own expense after obtaining necessary permission from the predecessor of the appellant and he was paying ground rent at Rs.3/- per month to the previous owner. It was also contended that the respondent is a mundkar of the suit shop and had filed an application for registration before the Mamlatdar at Nerul. It was further contended that the previous owner i.e. the predecessor- in- tittle of the appellant, had filed Regular Civil Suit No.45/1966 against the respondent claiming that the respondent was a tenant and had failed to pay the rent. The resp