Back
High Court Of Calcutta
J. N. HORE
MADAN PAL - Appellant
Versus
BASHANTI KUMAR SHIT - Respondent
C. R. 587 Of 1983
Decided On : 02/03/1989
LANDLORD AND TENANT - SUB-TENANCY - PURCHASE OF INTEREST OF SUPERIOR LANDLORD - NO MERGER - RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT CONTINUES - ARREAR RENTS DECREED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sub-tenant, purchased a 1/3rd interest in the superior landlord's property. The original landlord had let out the premises to the O.P., who had sublet a portion to the petitioner. The O.P. filed suits for recovery of arrear rent from the petitioner for specific periods, claiming that the petitioner had defaulted on rent payments. The petitioner argued that the sub-tenancy had determined due to the purchase of the superior landlord's interest, and there was no landlord-tenant relationship during the relevant time.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the doctrine of merger was not applicable in this case because the petitioner had acquired only a partial interest in the reversion and not the entire interest of the lessor. The court also noted that the petitioner had not acquired the interest of the O.P., who was the lessor. Therefore, there was no union of the entire interest of the lessor and the lessee, and the sub-tenancy created by the O.P. in favor of the petitioner could not be said to have determined.
Issues: Whether the purchase of a partial interest in the superior landlord's property by the sub-tenant resulted in the merger of the sub-tenancy and the termination of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that a lease of immovable property determines when the interest of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property becomes vested at the same time in one person in the same right. The court held that the petitioner had acquired only a 1/3rd interest in the superior landlord's property, which was not the entire interest of the lessor. Additionally, the petitioner had not acquired the interest of the O.P., who was the lessor. Therefore, there was no merger of the sub-tenancy, and the landlord-tenant relationship continued.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application and discharged the rule, upholding the decrees for arrear rents in favor of the O.P. against the petitioner.
( 1 ) C. R. No. 587 of 1983 and C. R. No. 588 of 1983 have been heard together. C. R. No. 587 of 1983 is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 11th Dec. 1982 passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Bankura in S. C. C. Suit No. 10 of 1978 decreeing a sum of Rs. 720/- as arrear rent from Shraban 1378 B. S. to Ashar 1381 B. S. The subject matter of challenge in C. R. No. 588 of 1983 is the judgment and decree dt. 11th Dec. 1982 passed by the same Small Cause Court Judge, Bankura in S. C. C. Suit No. 28 of 1978 decreeing a sum of Rs. 720/- as arrear rents from Shraban 1381 B. S. to Ashar 1384 B. S.
( 2 ) THE opposite party filed the said 2 suits for recovery of arrear rent upon the allegations that one Purna Chandra Chakraborty was the owner of the disputed premises pertaining to holding No. 148 of Kethar Danga Mahalla within Bankura Municipality. He let out the premises to the O. P. plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 45/- payable according to the Bengalee Calendar Month. The O. P. sublet a portion of the premises described in Schedule 'ka' to the plaint which comprises one room only at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- payable according to the Bengali Calendar Month, the petitioner/defendant defaulted in payment of rents for the periods mentioned above. It was further alleged that opposite party brought an ejectment suit against the petitioner and during the pendency of the suit the petitioner and his 2 brothers purchase the suit premises from the heirs of Purna Chandra Chakraborty and thus the O. P. became the tenant under the petitioner and his brothers.
( 3 ) THE petitioner/defendant contested the suits by filing written statements in which it was pleaded inter alia that he transferred his tenanted room long before to the heirs of Purna Satya Kinkar and so there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the relevant time.
( 4 ) IN Title Appeal No. 60 of 1981 arising out of Title Suit No. 30 of 1978, the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the O. P. against the petitioner and arrear rent from Shraban to Chaitra 1384 B. S. Relying upon the judgment and decree in the said Title Appeal the learned S. C. C. Judge held that there was relation of landlord and the tenant between the parties during the suit periods and as the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent he passed decrees for arrear of rents in the 2 suits. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has moved this court in revision and obtained the present Rule.
( 5 ) THE admitted facts are that the original owner of premises, Purna Chandra Chakraborty, let out the suit premises to the O. P. at a rental of Rs. 45/- per month and the O. P. in his turn sublet a portion of the suit premises namely one room as described in Schedule 'ka' to the petitioner at a rental of Rs. 20/- per month payable according to Bengali Calendar Months. It is also not in dispute that the O. P. got decrees for arrear rents from Jaistha 1369 B. S. to Aghrayan 1371 B. S. and Poush 1374 to Asar 1375 B. S. in earlier suits. It is also not disputed that the petitioner acquired the interest of the superior landlord to the extent of 1/3rd share. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that by virtue of the purchase of the interest of the superior landlord the sub-tenancy between the parties has determined and consequently there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the relevant time and as such the impugned decrees for arrear rents are unsustainable.
( 6 ) I am unable to accept this contention inasmuch as the doctrine of marger is not applicable in this case. Under Cl. (d) of S. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease of immovable property determines in case the interest of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property becomes vested at the same time in one person in the same right. When a leasehold and a r
AI
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
