T. LAKSHMIPATHI AND ORS. versus P. NITHYANANDA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 31-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

··~. 
T. LAKSHMI PA THI AN:O ORS. 
v. 
P. NJTHYANANDA REDDY AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: 
Landlord became co-owner of the suit property due to partition in 
property-Some of the co-owners sold their rights of ownership in tlie property 
-_Tenants transferring possession to vendee-Eviction petition-Decreed by 
A 
B 
c 
the courts below and affirmed by High Court-Landlord-tenant relationship-
Determination of-Doctrine of merger-Scope of-Held: Interest of the landlord D 
did not vest in the vendee since he acquired interest of only some of the co-
owners-By the act of transferring possession by tenants, vendee acquired 
tenancy rights-Hence vendee acquired partial ownership and fi11/ tenancy 
rights-Under such circumstances interests of lessee and the lessor in the 
whole property not vested in the vendee at the same time and in the same E 
right-Hence relationship of landlord-tenant continues to exist-Doctrine of 
merger not attracted-Lease not determined by merger-Transfer of Property 
Act.1872-S. I J l. 
Erection of new structure on the premises in occupation of tenant-
Demolition of superstructure by tenant but continuance of the land thereunder-
F 
Tenancy-Effect on-Held: Tenancy continues to exist since entire premises 
have not been lost-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Ss. 5 and 105. 
Property-Co-owner-Rights of-Discussed. 
Doctrines: 
"Doctrine of merger" and "Doctrine of frustration "-Meaning and 
applicability of 
G 
Landlord-respondent No. I became one of the co-owners along with 
other co-owners (viz. five sisters and widow of younger brother) of the H 
173 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A disputed property as a result of parti1ion in the family property. Against 
the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court for partition of the 
property, an appeal was pending. In the meanwhile all the co-owners 
except one sister and respondent No. l transferred their ownership rights 
in suit premises to appellant Nos. 3 to 5 by executing a sale deed and 
B thereafter the tenants handed over the possession in respect of suit 
prcmi.>es to appellants. However, respondent No. I initiated eviction 
proceedings against tenants under the A.P. Buildings Control Act on 
grounds of honajide requirement and for non-payment of arrears of rent. 
Further, appellants 3 to 5 transferred their rights and interest in the 
property to appellants Nos. I and 2 by a registered sale deed. Rent 
C Controller decreed the eviction suit. Appellate Authority confirmed the 
order of eviction. On dismissal of revision petition by the High Court, 
appellants preferred the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that since the appellants were 
also co-owners of the suit property, the suit for eviction would not lie and 
D that on demolition of tenancy premises, the subject matter of tenancy 
having ceased to exist the tenancy has come to an end. 
E 
F 
On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that since tenants in 
the suit property had transferred possession to appellants without the 
consent of the iandlord, it is· a case of partinu,, with possession by tenants; 
and that by such act of transferring of possession, tenancy could not have 
been merged with ownership and the relationship of the landlord-tenant 
could not be brought to an enll. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The doctrine of merger contemphites (i) coalescence of 
the interest of the lessee and the interest of the lessor; (ii) in the whole of 
the property; (iii) at the same time; (iv) in one person; (v) in the same 
right. There must be a complete union of the whole interests of the lessor 
and the lessee so as to enable the les!.er interest of the lessee sinking into 
G the larger interest of the lessor in the reversion. 1183-BI 
Lmr Lc:xicon. Second Edition, 1997 by P. Ramanatha Aiyar; Tomlins 
Lll\r Dict1onw)·; 2 Black Com., 177; and Genural Lu\1' of Landlord and Tenant 
hy Foa Eighth Edition, 642, referred to. 
H 
1.2. In the instant case, the appellants are not purchasers of the entire 
• 
-
T. LAKSHMIPATHI v. P.N. REDDY 
175 
ownership interest in the property. They have purchased interest of some A 
out of all the co-owners of the property. The interest of the respondent 
No. I has not come to vest in the appellants. The appellants have also 
acquired the tenancy rigMs in the property. Thus they have acquired 
p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.