MOHAR SINGH (DEAD BY LRS.) versus DEVI CHARAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 09-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHAR SINGH (DEAD BY LRS.) 
A 
v . . 
DEVI CHARAN & OTHERS 
MAY 9, 1988 
. 
I 
[R.S. PATIIAK CJ AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.] 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 109-Limitation on right 
of landlord against splitting unity and integrity of tenancy-Assignee of 
. 
' 
part of reversion can exercise right of landlord-Consent of tenant not 
l\eeded. 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent And Evic-
tion) Act, 1972: Section 21-Landlord-Not entitled to split unity and 
integrity of tenancy and recover possession of part of demised premises 
from tenant. 
c 
The first respondent was a tenant of two adjacent shops, under a D 
single lease, obtained from two co-owners. The co-owners transferred 
their respective shares separately. Pursuant to partition between the 
transferees, the apjieUant became. the exclusive owner .of one of the 
shops. 
The appellant institnted proceedings and obtained an order for E 
the eviction of the first respondent from his shop on the ground Of own 
bonafide need. The District Judge upheld that order. The High Court, 
however, in a writ petition accepted the contention of the first respon· 
dent that in claiming possession of a part of the subject matter of the 
original lease the appellant as seeking to split the integrity and unity of 
the tenancy, which was impermlssible in law. The High Court accord· F 
ingly set aside the concurrent orders of the courts below. 
Allowing the appeal, it was 
HELD: (1) A landlord could not split the unity and integrity Of 
the tenancy and recover possession of a part of the demised premises G 
from the tenant. But section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act pro-
vided a statntory exception of this rule. By virtue Of this exception, the 
limitation on the right of the landlord against splitting-up Of the 
integrity of the tenancy, inhering in the inhibitions of his own contract, 
did not visit the assignee of the part of the reversion. There was no need 
for the consent of the tenant for the severance of the reversion and the 
H 
255 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19881 Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A assignment of the part so severed. [258C-E] 
(2) Thongh there was difference of opinion among the various 
High Conrts on the p0int, the teamed Judge in this case should have 
considered himself hound by an earlier decision of the S8ine High Court 
in Ram Chandra Singh case which had taken the view that section lo9 
B 
C)f the T .P. Act was attracted to the case ofpartitliin aiso. [259G-H] 
c 
(3) Without pronouncing on the correctness of the decision 
in Ram Chandra Singh's case, this Court applied the sante rule; 
and reversed the High Court on the point and restored the order bf 
eviction. [260B l 
kannyan v. Alikutty, AIR 1920 Mad 838 (FB): Badri Narain Iha 
and Ors. t. Rameshwar Dayal & Ors., [19Sl] SCR 153 and Ram 
Chandra Singh v. Ram Saran & Ors., AIR 1978 All. 173, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal :No 485 of 
D 
1982. 
From the Judgment and order dated 28.3.1980 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2280 of 1919. 
i-
M. S. Gupta for the Appellant. 
Uma Dutta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered liy 
VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, by special leave, is by the 
F 
.Landlord preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1980 by 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2280 
of 1979 setting-aside, at the instance of the First respondent-tenant, 
the concurrent orders of the Courts below granting possession to the 
appellant. 
G 
2. The first-respondent was a tenant of two adjacent shops, 
under a single lease, obtained from two co-owners Shri Jado Ram and 
Asha Ram who had, respectively 3/8ih and 5/8th shares in the pro-
perty. Appellant, Mohar Singh became the transferee of the 3/8th 
share of Jadoram. Similarly, Asha Ram's 5/8th interest came to be 
transferred, through and intermediary aiienation, to a certain Gyllfi 
H Chand. Pursuant to a decree in a civil suit for partition betweeii Gyilii 
.< 
,. 
MOHAR SINGHv. DEVI CHARAN [VENKATACHALIAH, J.J 
251 
Chand and the appellant, the co-ownership c·ame to an end and towards 
his share app.ellant was allotted, and became the exclusive owner of, 
one of the shops. That is the subject-matter of the present proceed-
· ~p. 
. 
. 
3. Appellant instituted proceedings for eviction against the First 
respondent under Section 21 of U .P. Act XIII of 1972 before the 
prescribed authority on the ground of his own bonafide 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.