Back
1999 Supreme(All) 905
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YATINDRA SINGH
MASURYADIN - Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL JUDGE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 11679 Of 1983
Decided On : 07/06/1999
D.C.SAXENA
The transferee of a leased property, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, possesses all the rights of the lessor, including the right to receive rent.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - SALE OF HOUSE WITH SHOP - STATUS OF TENANT DURING TRANSFER PERIOD - SECTION 109 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, owners of a house with a shop let out to Respondent No. 3, sold the house to Saligram-Radheshyam in 1972 with a re-conveyance agreement. Petitioners became tenants of Saligram-Radheshyam. In 1994, Saligram-Radheshyam re-conveyed the house to the petitioners. Petitioners filed a suit for ejectment of Respondent No. 3 for non-payment of rent during the period when Saligram-Radheshyam owned the house.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that during the period of the sale deed in favor of Saligram-Radheshyam, Respondent No. 3 was their tenant, not a sub-tenant of the petitioners. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act clarified that the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, possesses all the rights of the lessor, including the right to receive rent. The court found no such contract in this case.
Issues: 1. What was the nature of the transaction between petitioners and Saligram-Radheshyam in 1972? Was it a mortgage? 2. What was the status of Respondent No. 3 during the period of the sale deed in favor of Saligram-Radheshyam? Was Respondent No. 3 a tenant of Saligram-Radheshyam or a sub-tenant of the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Transfer of Property Act, Section 58(c), and case law to establish that a transaction involving a sale with a separate agreement for re-conveyance cannot be considered a mortgage unless the condition for re-transfer is embodied in the same document. 2. The court interpreted Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act to hold that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the transferee of a leased property possesses all the rights of the lessor, including the right to receive rent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the arrears of rent from Respondent No. 3 for the period when Saligram-Radheshyam owned the house. The suit was rightly dismissed as not maintainable.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises a question about the status of a tenant (of a portion of a house) of a person a during the period when he (the person a) had transferred the entire house to the third party b and he himself (the person a) became the tenant of his transferee b. Will the tenant continue to be the tenant of that person a or become the tenant of his transferee b? What will happen if the transferee b re-transfers the house to the person a? Does it mean that the person a continued to be the landlord of the tenant during the period he had transferred the house to the third party b? These questions arise in the following background. FACTS
( 2 ) PETITIONERS are the owners of the House No. 636, Bhadurganj, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the House ). There is a shop in this house, which was let out to one Nafis Ahmad (Respondent No. 3) at the rate of Rs. 90. 00 per month in 1967. Nafis Ahmad has died during the pendency of the writ petition and is substituted by his heirs. All of them are referred to as respondent No. 3. In 1969, some of the petitioners executed a sale deed in favour of one Ramashankar for Rupees 3000/- in respect of the house. The details of the petitioners who have executed these deeds are not relevant. They are referred to as the petitioners. Rama Shankar also executed an agreement of re-conveyance in favour of the petitioners on the same day. A rent deed was also executed on the same day by which petitioners became the tenants of Rama Shankar at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per month. In 1972, three deeds were executed on the same day between the three parties: (1) Rama Shankar to whom the house was earlier sold; (2) some of the petitioners (the petitioners for short as the details are not relevant); and (3) Saligram and Radheshyam (Saligram-Radheshyam for short ). They executed three deeds on the same day. These deeds were: (1) a sale deed in favour of Saligram-Radheshyam for Rs. 10,000. 00 (the money was shared by the petitioners and Ramashankar; (2) a deed of re-conveyance in favour of the petitioner by Saligram-Radheshyam; and (3) a rent deed by which the petitioners became the tenant of the house at the rate of Rs. 150. 00 per month. The effect of these three deeds (in 1972) was that Ramashankar went out of the picture and a new relationship between petitioners and Saligram-Radheshyam came into existence. In the deeds of 1969 or 1972, there is no any reference about the shop, or respondent No. 3 or about his status. They are silent on this quesion.
( 3 ) SALIGRAM-RADHESHYAM were undoubtedly the landlord of the petitioners. They filed a JSCC Suit No. 39/1976 for ejectment and for arrears of rent against the petitioners. Some of the petitioners (petitioners for short as the details not relevant) filed a suit No. 19 of 1977 for cancellation of the transfer deed etc (executed in 1972) in favour of Saligram-Radheshyam. These two suits wereconsolidated and decided by a common judgment dated 12-8-1980 by the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad. The suit filed by Saligram-Radheshyam was decreed for the recovery of arrears of rent against by the petitioners, but was dismissed for their ejectment. The other suit No. 19/1977 filed by the petitioners for the cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed. Petitioners filed an appeal and a revision against the judgment in these suits. During pendency of these proceedings, two more suits were filed by the petitioners: one against Saligram-Radhe-shyam alleging that the transaction evidenced by the three deeds in 1972 was in fact mortgage and for its redemption; and the other against respondent No. 3 for his ejectment.
( 4 ) THE petitioners filed the suit No. 440/1990 against Saligram-Radheshyam on the allegation that transaction evidenced by the three deeds in 1972 was in fact a mortgage and it be redeemed. This suit was compromised between the petitioners and Saligran-Radheshyam in 1994. A compromise decree was also passed in the same year. In
