PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. versus BIBI HUSN BANO AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 1119 · Decided: 03-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. 
v. 
BIBI HUSN BANO AND ORS. 
MAY 3, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.) 
Transfer of Property Act, I 882 : 
A 
B 
s. II I (d)-Determination of lease-Held, lease or tenancy does not get C 
determined by tenant acquiring rights of a co-owner landlord-A merger 
takes place and lease gets determined only if entire reversion or entire rights 
of landlord are purchased by tenant-Doctrine of merger-Bihar Buildings 
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 
Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents leased out a building to 
the predccessor-in-int1erest of the appellants. Litigation under the Bihar 
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act started between the 
parties, initially for fixation of fair rent and later for eviction of appellant-
tenant on grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need. Pending disposal 
D 
of the suit for eviction the trial court directed the tenants to deposit the E 
fair rent. The order was affirmed by the High Court in. revision. 
In the appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the tenants contended 
that they having taken an assignment of the rights of some of the co-owner-
landlords, the lease or the tenancy over the building stood extinguished 
and since there was no subsisting relationship of landlord-tenant between F 
the parties, the order to deposit the rent could not have been passed. The 
two-judge Bench before which the appeal was listed for hearing, felt that 
the decision in Abdul Alim v. Sheikh Jamal Uddin Ansari* was in conflict 
with another coordinate Bench decision in r Lakshmipathi and Ors. v. P. 
Nithyananda Reddy and Ors.** Consequently, the appeal came to be hard 0 
by the present three Judge Bench. 
On the question: whether on acquisition of rights oi some of the co-
owner-landlords by the tenant, there is an extinguishment of the tenancy 
by merger as postulated by s.11 l(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 
1119 
H 
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Per Balasub,.amanyan, J : 
1.1. A plain and grammatical interpretation of Section 11 l(d) of the 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 leaves no room for doubt that unless the 
B interests of the lessee and that of the lessor in the whole of the property 
leased, become vested at the same time in one person in the same right, a 
determination of the lease cannot take place. On tenant's taking an 
assignment from some of the co-owner landlords, the interests of the lessee 
and the lessor in the whole of the property do not become vested at the 
same time in one person in the same right. Where a h:nant takes an 
C assignment of the rights of the landlord or the reversion, the lease is 
determined, only if by such assignment, the interests of the lessee and the 
lessor in the whole of the property, become vested in the tenant. The 
emphasis in the section is clearly on the coalescing of the entire rights of 
the lessor and the lessee in the whole of the property in the hands of the 
D lessee. The provision incorporates the doctrine of merger at common law. 
Therefore, a lessee who has taken assignment of the rights of a co-owner 
lessor, cannot sucl!essfully raise the plea of determination of tenancy on 
the ground of merger of his lessee's estate in that of the estate of the 
landlord. (1128-G-H; 1129-A; 1138-G)} 
E 
Badri Narain Jha and Ors. v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh and Ors., _(1951) 
SCR 153, relied on. 
Someshwari Prasad Narain Dea v. Maheshwari Prasad Narain Dea, 
ILR X Patna 630, referred to. 
F 
1.2. The ingredients of· .!rger are that two immediate estates should 
come into the hands of the same person at the same time and it must be 
the right in the whole of the property. A merger is prevented if there is 
an intermediate estate outstanding with another at the relevant time. 
(1130-E-Fl 
G 
Puran Chand v. Kirpal Singh, (20011 2 SCC 433, relied on 
P. Veeriah v. Mohammed Kunju Kaya and Ors., (1991) 2 KLJ 96; 
Mohan Singh (Dead by l.Rs.) v. Devi Charan and Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1365 
and Vishnu Dea v. Bal Kishan, AIR (2002) SC 569, referred to. 
H 
Rye v. Rye, (1962) AC 496; Faquir Baksh v. Murli Dhar, (58) Indian 
PRAMOD KUMAR .IAISWAL v. BIBI HUSN BANO 
1121 
Appeals 75 and Chambers v. Kingham, Law Reports (1878) 10 Chancery A 
743, referred to. 
Cheshire and Burn's Modern Law of Real Property, 16th Edition and 
Megarry 's Manual of the Law of Real Property, 8th Edition, referred to. 
2.1. The dec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.