LexM/S SHAHA RATANSI KHIMJI & SONS versus PROPOSED KUMBHAR SONS HOTEL P. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 6 S.C.R. 1101
M/S SHAHA RATANSI KHIMJI & SONS
v.
PROPOSED KUMBHAR SONS HOTEL P. LTD. & ORS.
(CIVIL APPEAL N0.127 OF 2007)
A
JULY 10, 2014.
B
[R.M.LODHA, CJI, SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: ss.105, 108, 111 - Held:
A lease of immovable .property is a transfer of right to enjoy C
such property in -consideration of price paid as per s. 105 of
the T.P. Act - By way of lease, a right and interest is creat~d
which stands transferred in favour of the lessee - The
immovable property, thereafter, only can be reverted back on
detennination of such right and interest in accordance with the
D
provisions of the T.R. Act - Therefore, once the right of lease
is transferred in favour of the lessee, the des~ruction of a
house/building constructed on the lease property does not
detennine the tenancy rights of occupant which is incidental
to the contract of the lease which continues to exist between
E
the parties - In the instant case, respondent purchased the
lessor's interest - Lease continued even thereafter and did not
extinguish - The lease was subsisting when the shares of the
land were purchased by the respondent - But the interest of
the lessee was not purchased by the respondent - Demolition
F
and destruction of the tenanted premises - Tenancy of the
appellant cannot be said. to have been determined
consequent upon demolition of the tenanted premises - High
Court wrongly held that tenancy rights of appellant had lapsed
- However, taking into considef"{ltion the fact that the appellant
G
has not been in possession of the suit property since long,
restoration of possession of suit property to the appellant is
not directed - Instead respondent is directed to pay a sum of
Rs. 20,00,0001- in favour of the appellant towards
1101
H
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 6 S.C.R.
A compensation for depriving him from erjoying the suit
property - Lease.
·
Lease: Destruction of leased building - Status of lessee
- Held: When there is a lease of a house or a shop it cannot
8 be treated as a. lease of structure but also a lease of .site -
Once a tenancy is created in respect of a building standing
on the land it is the building and the land which are both
components of the subject-matter of demise and the
destruction of the building alone does not determine the
tenancy when the land which is the site of the building
C continues to exist - This interpretation, is in accord with s. 1 OB
of the TP Act - Transfer of Property Act, 1882
·
The appellant had taken a godown over the southern
portion of the suit property on rent and was using the
D access on eastern side of ·the godown for approaching
the municipal road and in bringing its goods to the
godown. The owner of the northern portion of the suit
property sold his portion to the respondent. The
respondent demolishea the construction existing over
E his portion and started digging for basement. Later on,
the respondent purchased the southern portion of the
suit property also. The case of the appellant that the
digging work exposed the base of the godown to the
vagaries of nature.During the rainy season, water got
F aceumulated in the said .ditch and entire structure of
godown was threatened. When the appellant inquired the
respondent about the same, the respondent asked the
appellant to vacate the godown. The respondent also
threatened the workers of the appellant. Therefore,
G according to the appellant, the excavation made by the
respondent was intentional and directed towards
terminating the tenancy of the appellant by adopting
dubious methods. It was also alleged that the respondent
also closed the access road to the suit property. Thus,
H the appellant was unable to keep its goods in or take out
SHAHA RATANSI KHIMJI & SONS v. PROPOSED KUMBHAR 1103
SONS HOTEL P. LTD.
its goods from the suit property, causing irreparable loss A
to the appellant.
The appellant filed a suit with a prayer that the
respondent be restrained from closing the access of the
appellant to the suit property from the municipal road and e.
digging in a manner which would cause damage to the
godown. The civil court dismissed the suit. The first
appellate court upheld the decision of the civil court. By
impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the
second appeal on the ground that the tenancy right of the C
appellant had lapsed. The instant appeal was filed
challenging theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.