LexFIRM SARDARILAL VISHWANATH A.ND ORS. versus PRITAM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
...
A
•
'
FIRM SARDARILAL VISHWANATH A.ND ORS.
v.
PRITAM SINGH
August 14, 1978
[JASWANT SINGH, D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
111
Transfer of Property Act, S. 106--fVhether statutory tenant entitled to notice
to quit prior to action in ejectment 11nder Rent Restriction Act .
The appellant firm took the demised- premises on lease for a period of
11 months, and after the determination of the lease by efflux of time, it continued
in possession and became· a statutory tenant. The respondent landlord commen-
A
ced an ejectment action against it under s. 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction
C
Act, 1949, without serving a notice to quit.
The appellant challenged !he
maintainatbility of such action, claiming entitlement to a prior quit not~ce u /s
106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The claim was rejected by the High
Court.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : If the lease of immovable property determi~es in any one of tho
D
modes prescribed u/s 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and the. terllint lessee
continues in possession as a statutory tenant under the protective wing of the
Rent Restriction Act, there is no question of giving him a fresh notice u/s 106
terminating the contract of teiiancy because the conUact comes to an end once
the lease determines.
[120F·H]
Kai Khushroo Bezonjee Capadia v. Bal Jerbai I-Iirjibhoy Warden and Anr.,
1949 F.C.R. 262 at 272; followed.
E
Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Karlik Chandra Das and Ors., [1961] 3 S.C.R. 813;
Bhawa11ji Lakhan1shi and Ors. v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Ors., [1972] :!
S.C.R. 890; Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v.
Haji Gulamnabi /Jaji Safibhai,
[1964] S SCR 157; Bhaiya Ram v. Mahavir Prasad, 1968 (70) P.L.R. !Oii;
affirmed.
Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi [1964] 5 S.C.R. 239; Manujendra Datt v.
Purendu Prasad Roy Chowdhury and Ors., [1967] 1 S.C.R. 475; Rawal & Co. v.
K. C. Ramachandran and Ors., [1974] 2 S.C.R. 629 at 634; distinguished.
Davies v. Bristow [1920] 3 K.B. 428; Morrison v. Jacobs, (1945] 1 K.B. 577,
R. Krishnamurthy v. Parthasarathy, A.LR. 1949 Madras 780; .Ratanlal v. Vardesh
Chander [1976] 2 SCR 906; P. V . .Rao v. C. V. Ramano [1976] 2 S.C.R. 551;
referred to .
Lalithn v. Aviswnma, [1977] 2 R.C.R. Vol. 10 690; overruled.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J .-The unsuccessful tenant in this appeal by special leave
drawing his sustenance from an apparent but unreal conflict amon~t
certain decisions of this Court as noticed by the Kerala High Court in
Lalitha v. Avisumma('), made a furious attempt to re-open the con-
troversy : whether a statutory tenant is entitled to notice as envisaged
(!) [1977] (2) Vol. 10 R.C.R. 690. [Kerala FB]
r
G
H
A
:-:#-
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
I
by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before an action in
ejectment is commen.ced against him under any of the enabling pro.
visions of the relevant Rent Restriction Act.
Mr. V. C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed
two contentions before us : ( 1) As the respondent landlord had not
B
terminated the tenancy of the appellant by a notice to quit as con-
templated by s. 106 0£ the Transfer of Property Act, an action in
ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act.
1949 (for short 'the Act') is not maintainable; (2) Though the land-
lord sought eviction on the ground that the building was likely to fall
down as it was in a dilapidated condition antl had become unsafe for
C
human habitation, the vety fact that for the last 15 years the building
is standing and the tenant is . occupying and using it, it would
ipso
facio negative the case of the landlord that' the building has become
unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
The backdrop of facts is this : the ten~nt, a firm,
under two
D
separate rent notes from two separate landlords having
specified
shares in the demised premises, took on lease the premises and the
tenancy commenced from 1st January 1960, and the demise was for
a period of 11 months. On the expiry of the period reserved by the
lease, the tenant continued in possession.
'If the period
reserved
under the lease was of 11 months, obviously the lease determined by
E efllux of time limited thereby as provided ins. 111 (a) of the Transfer
of Property Act. Section 116 provides for effect of holding over. If
a lessee, of property remains in possession thereof after the determina-
tion of the lease anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.