The destruction of the superstructure of a leased property does not automatically terminate the tenancy if the site of the property is an integral part of the lease.

Whether the destruction of a shop room leased out on rent would automatically terminate the lease and put an end to the landlord-tenant relationship, is the question arising for decision in this Second Appeal.

2. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit, alleging that he is the tenant of a shop room owned by the respondent-defendant and used by him as a go down and described as such in the plaint schedule. The shop room was situated in Ward No. X of Trichur Municipality. There is no dispute about the entrustment of the shop room to the plaintiff as a tenant for a rent of Rs.130/- per month some 23 years before the date of the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit on the allegation that while he was using the shop room as a go down for storing indigenous medicines for his trade, it was deliberately pulled down by the Municipal authorities on the night of 7-11-1981 at the active instigation of the defendant who is the Councilor of the Municipality from Ward No.X. There was a notice issued by the Municipality directing that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that it is dangerous to keep it in that condition. According to the plaintiff, it was a ruse adopted by the defendant to get vacant possession of the land under the superstructure of the shop room, putting an end to plaintiffs right to continue in possession of the building as a tenant availing the benefits conferred on the tenants by the beneficial provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It was specifically alleged that the building which was in a good condition was deliberately pulled down on the night of 7-11-1981. The entire building was pulled down and the whole lot of indigenous Medicines stocked in the room was destroyed by heavy rain. The plaintiff pr, vd/, -decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering putting up new structures in the land which formed the floor of the shop room him, claiming that such land is still in his possession and enjoyment and he is entitled to be in occupation of the same as tenant on the same terms and conditions subject to which he was holding the shop room prior to its destruction. The plain tiff further contended that the defendant is not entitled to enter into the land and put up new structures therein as if the tenancy in his favour is already terminated automatically on the destruction of the superstructure of the shop room. The tenancy still! Continues and has not been determined in accordance with law.

3. As defendant, the respondent denied all the material allegations in the plaint except the fact that the plaintiff was the tenant of the shop room described in the plaint schedule. The defendant specifically denied the allegation that the Municipal authorities have deliberately demolished the superstructure of the shop room at his instigation as a ruse to get vacant possession of the land underneath the shop room as totally false. It was contended that the shop room collapsed itself in rain because of its highly dilapidated condition. Since the shop room leased out was not in existence on the date of the suit, the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant has ceased to exist even prior to the filing of the suit and the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit in question which is one filed on the basis that the tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant still subsists. By the total destruction of the shop room let out, the tenancy which is admittedly created with reference to the shop room has come to an end. The shop room described in the plaint schedule was not in existence on the date of the suit and the suit brought with reference to a non-existent property is not legally maintainable.

4. The plaintiff took out an advocate-commissioner immediately on the filingofthesuitonlO-11-1981; to inspect the site of the building and submit report. The commissioner inspected the site on 10-11-1981 itself and submitted Ext.01 report dated 11-11-1