Tenancy rights persist despite the destruction of leased premises, as established by the Supreme Court ruling.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr Shukr Usgaonkar for the appellants. The respondents, though served, were neither present nor represented. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, and the respondents are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.131/1998 instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao (Trial Court).

3. The appellants instituted the suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the suit premises and/or dispossessing the appellants from the suit premises or blocking their access to the suit premises, or causing loss or damage to the suit premises either by demolishing the same or any portion thereof. The appellants had claimed in the suit that they were the tenants of the suit premises, of which the respondents were the landlords.

4. The appellants amended the suit because it was their case that during the pendency of the suit the suit premises were destroyed due to acts attributable to the respondents. Mr Usgaonkar explained that the suit premises were on the ground floor, and the respondents/landlords occupied the first floor premises. However, the respondents/landlords demolished/ damaged the first floor premises, as a result of which the suit premises on the ground floor were exposed to the elements of nature. The suit premises ultimately collapsed, so the appellants had to source alternate premises.

5. By way of amendment, the appellants sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from developing the property surveyed under No.1/5 at Assolna, Salcete, Goa, for any purpose other than to reconstruct the suit premises or to do any additional construction permissible therein. The appellants also sought a mandatory injunction to direct the respondents to reconstruct the suit premises and restore the possession of the reconstructed premises to the appellants.

6. The Trial Court, by Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2009, dismissed the suit with costs. The Trial Court disbelieved the appellants' case about the suit premises being destructed due to any acts attributable to the respondents. The Trial Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vannattankady Ibrayi v/s. Kunhabdulla Hajee , (2001) 1 SCC 564 held that once the tenanted premises are destroyed, the right to tenancy stands extinguished. The Trial Court ultimately held that the suit was not maintainable as the suit premises did not exist.

7. The appellants appealed by instituting Regular Civil Appeal No.145/2009 in the District Court-IV, South Goa at Margao. By Judgment and Decree dated 19.05.2010, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs by upholding the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

8. This Second Appeal was admitted on 05.10.2011 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the reliance placed by the Courts below on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vannattankandy Ibrayi ((2000) 1 SCC 564) to hold that as the suit premises had been destroyed due to natural causes, the Appellant's tenancy right had extinguished, was misplaced in light of the Appellant's clear pleadings and evidence to the effect that the respondents had actively caused the demised premises to collapse during the heavy rains ?”

9. By further order dated 17.03.2023, an additional substantial question of law was formulated, and the same reads as follows:-

“Whether in view of the later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaha Ratansi Khimji and Sons Vs Kumbhar Sons Hotel Private Limited and others [(2014) 14 SCC 1], the impugned decrees, which are based upon Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs Kunhabdulla Hajee [(2001) 1 SCC 564] warrant interference ?”

10. Mr Shukr Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees made by th