P. VEERAPPA versus M.A. MOHAMMED AMANULLA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 04-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

P. VEERAPPA 
v. 
M.A. MOHAMMED AMANULLA 
DECEMBER 4, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction : 
Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 : 
S.21-Tenant in a"ears of rent-Entering into an agreement with 
landlord to purchase premises-Failure .to pay consideration within stipulated 
period-Eviction proceedings by landlord-Tenant's objection to eviction 
proceedings under the Act and claim of rights under agreement-Held, not 
maintainable. 
The appellant, a tenant of the premises in dispute, entered into an 
agreement with the respondent-landlord to purchase the premises. Later 
he filed a suit for specific performances which was compromised. In the 
compromise, the appellant admitted being in arrears of rent and agreed 
to pay the re-fixed consideration, but he failed to pay the amount within 
the stipulated time. 
Subsequently the landlord filed an application under s.21 of the 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the appellant. The 
appellant disputed the title of the landlord and raised a preliminary 
objection that he was in possession as an agreement holder and not as a 
tenant as his tenancy rights got merged in bis right as an agreement bolder 
and be was entitled to benefit under s.53-A of the Transfer of property Act. 
He contended that the matter was to be decided by the Civil Court and the 
Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. The claim of the appellant was 
rejected by the Rent Controller as also by the High Court. Hence this 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The lesser right of tenancy stood merged with the larger 
rights accrued under the agreement, as long as the agreement subsisted. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
But since the terms of the agreement were not complied with, the agree-
H 
151 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
me'!t came to an end and the appellant's pre-existing rights as a tenant 
stood revived and the parties were bound by the relationship of landlord 
and tenant. The Rent Controller was entitled to proceed with the matter 
in accordance with law. [153-D-E) 
B 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11900 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.1991 of the Karnataka 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3019 of 1987. 
Ms. Kiran Suri for the Appellant. 
O.C. Mathur and Mrs. Meera Mathur for J.B.D. & Co. for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal is filed against 
the order dated September 23, 1991 made by the Karnataka High Court in 
C.R.P. No. 3019/87. The facts are clearly not in dispute. They are stated as 
E 
under: 
The appellant was a tenant prior to 1959. In 1959, the appellant had 
entered into an agreement with the respondent to purchase the premises 
for some consideration. Since the appellant claimed that the respondent 
was not willing to perform his part of the contract, he laid the suit for 
F 
specific performance. In the suit, the parties ultimately had compromised 
the dispute and agreed to enhance the consideration to a sum of Rs. 38,000 
payable within the specific time. Unfortunately, the appellant had not paid 
the amount within the agreed time which put an end to the rights asserted 
by the appellant under the contract. 
G 
When an application for eviction under Section 21 of the Karnataka 
Rent Control Act was filed, the appellant raised preliminary objection that 
his tenancy rights had got merged in his right as an agreement-holder and 
he was in possession of the suit-premises as an agreement-holder and not 
as a tenant and thereby he disputed the title of the respondent. The 
H appellant sought for a decision by the Civil Court in that behalf. The 
P. VEERAPPA v. M.A.MOHAMMEDAMANULLA 
153 
Controller negatived it and the High Court by the impugned order affirmed A 
the same. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
It is contended by Mrs. Kiran Suri, learned counsel for the appellant 
that the tenancy rights which the appellant had prior to 1959 stood merged 
with the rights as an agreement-holder. The appellant was always ready 
and willing to perform his part of the contract and was entitled to the B 
benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The tenancy 
rights thereby stood merged with the right as an agreement-holder and 
that, therefore, the application for eviction did not lie. The Rent Control 
Court under those circumstances had no jurisdiction to go into that ques-
tion

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