VANNATTANKANDY IBRAYI versus KUNHABDULLA HAJEE

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 13-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VANNATTANKANDY IBRAYI 
v. 
KUNHABDULLA HAJEE 
DECEMBER 13, 2000 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction: 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965-Sections 2(1) 
C & I I-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 108 (B)(e)-App/icability 
of-Tenancy right over a building-After complete destruction of the same by 
natural calamity- Held, the tenancy right stands extinguished- -Since the 
Rent Act is applicable only to the buildings and not to the land--Section 
108(B)(e) has no application in case of premises governed by State Rent Act. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Special leave petition-
Decision in-Dismissing without assigning any reason-Held, has no binding 
force on its subsequent decision-Doctrine of precedence. 
Words and Phrases- 'Building'-Meaning of-Jn the context of Kera/a 
E Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 
A shop was let out to the appellant-tenant, which was totally destroyed 
due to natural calamity and the premises was reduced to a vacant land. 
Appellant reconstructed a new shop on the land without the consent of the 
landlord-respondent. Landlord filed a suit for mandatory injunction for 
F demolition of the new shop and for possession of the land. 
G 
Trial Court held that after the destruction of the shop the tenancy in 
respect of the land still subsisted and therefore landlord was not entitled to 
recover the possession of the shop as the same was constructed without 
consent. 
Respondent-landlord and appellant-tenant, both filed appeal against the 
decree, which were dismissed by the first appellate court. Respondent as well 
as the appellant filed second appeal to High Court. The appeal of the 
Respondent-landlord was allowed while the appeal of the Appellant-tenant was 
H dismissed, holding that due to total destruction of the premises by natural 
630 
VANNA TT ANKANDY IBRA YI v. KUNHABDULLA HAJEE 
631 
calamity, the tenancy stood extinguished and therefore landlord was entitled A 
to the decree of recovery of possession of the land. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that even if the tenanted 
shop was totally destroyed, there was no destruction of the tenancy and that 
the appellant is entitled to squat on the vacant land by virtue of Section 
I 08(8)( e) of Transfer of Property Act, as he had not exercised the option for B 
rendering the tenancy void. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. 1. When the tenanted shop has been completely destroyed, 
the tenancy right stands extinguished as the demise must have a subject matter 
and if the same is no longer in existence, there is an end of tenancy and 
therefore, Section 108(8)(e) of Transfer of Property Act has no application 
in case of premises governed by State Rent Act when it is completely destroyed 
c 
by natural calamities. The tenant has been given an option under Section 
108(B)(e) of Transfer of Property Act to render the lease of the premises as D 
void and avoid the liability to pay monthly rent to the landlord. Section 
108(B)(e) cannot be interpreted to mean that the tenant is entitled to squat on 
the open land in the hope that in future if any shop is constructed on the site 
where the old shop existed, he would have the right to occupy the newly 
constructed premises on the strength of original contract of tenancy. The 
lease of a shop is transfer of the property for its enjoyment. On destruction E 
of the shop the tenancy cannot be said to be continuing since the tenancy of 
a shop presupposes a property in existence and there cannot be subsisting 
tenancy where the property is not in existence. (641-B, C, DI 
1.2. If a building is governed by the State Rent Act, the tenant cannot 
claim benefit of the provisions of Sections 106, 108 and 114 of Transfer of F 
Property Act (640-F( 
V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1979( 4 SCC 214; Pradesh 
Kumar Bajpai v. Binod Behari Sarkar. (198013SCR348; K.K. Krishnan v. 
M.K. Vijay Ragavan, ( 1980( 4 SCC 88 and Pri1hvichand Ramchand Sablok v. G 
S. V. Shinde, (1993( 3 SCC 271, relied on. 
Mahadeo Prasadv. Calcutta D and C Company, AIR (1961) Cal. 70; 
George v. Verghese, (1979) K.L.T. 859; Thomas v. Moram Mar Baselious 
Ougen, AIR (1979) Kerala, 156 and Siddharlhan v. Ramadasan, AIR (1984) 
Kerala 181, approved. 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. ltd. v. Tayebhai Mohammedbhai 
Bagasarwal/a, AIR (1996) Bombay, 389 and V Kalpakam Amma v. Mathurama 
Iyer M

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