9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicant's request for Official Liquidator to accept rent after premises destruction. 2. Legal status of applicant as a tenant post premises destruction. 3. Application of lease termination provisions under Transfer of Property Act. 4. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment on lease termination in case of destruction. Analysis: 1. The applicant, a former tenant of a company in liquidation, sought direction for the Official Liquidator to accept rent of Rs. 8,100 covering the period from 1-7-1987 to 31-12-2000, despite the premises being destroyed due to communal riots in 1992. 2. The applicant claimed to still hold a tenant status, arguing that the relationship with the company as a tenant persisted post-destruction. However, the Official Liquidator and the secured creditor contended that the applicant was no longer a tenant since 1992 and had not paid rent since 1-7-1987. 3. The key legal question revolved around whether the Official Liquidator could be compelled to accept rent when the applicant was no longer residing in the demolished premises. Reference was made to the provisions of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding lease termination in case of property destruction. 4. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee, emphasizing that under the Transfer of Property Act, a lessee has the option to terminate the lease if the property is wholly destroyed or rendered unfit. However, in cases governed by State Rent Acts, the lessee may not have the right to continue as a tenant if the premises are completely destroyed and not leased separately. In conclusion, the court rejected the applicant's request, ruling that the Official Liquidator could not be directed to accept rent as the applicant could not be considered a tenant post-destruction, especially in the absence of any legal provision supporting the continuation of the tenancy. The application was dismissed, and notice was discharged with no costs imposed.
|
