9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lease was of land appurtenant to a building or vice-versa. 2. Applicability of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to the lease in question. 3. Interpretation of the term "appurtenant" in the context of the lease. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the lease was of land appurtenant to a building or vice-versa. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the lease was primarily of a building with land appurtenant thereto or if it comprised two separate leases'one for the building and the other for the land. The lease deed dated 28-7-1951 described the property as including a tiled residential building and surrounding land with various trees. The Court noted that the lease included provisions such as monthly rent payment, prohibition on improvements to the land, and retention of another building by the lessor, indicating that the land was intended as an adjunct to the building. The Court concluded that the lease was of the building with the land appurtenant thereto. Issue 2: Applicability of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to the lease in question. The respondent claimed rights under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, asserting he was a cultivating tenant. The appellant resisted, arguing that the lease was of a building with land appurtenant thereto, exempting it from the Act u/s 3(1)(ii). The Court examined the lease deed and found that the lease was primarily for the building, with the land being incidental. Consequently, the lease was exempt from the provisions of Chapter II of the Act, and the respondent could not claim rights under Section 72B. Issue 3: Interpretation of the term "appurtenant" in the context of the lease. The Court discussed the term "appurtenant" and its judicial interpretations, emphasizing that it implies subordination or something incidental to the principal matter. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Budhi Mal vs. Bhati and Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P., to illustrate that the term should be understood in context. The Court concluded that the land in question was appurtenant to the building, as the lease imposed restrictions on the land's use, reinforcing that the land was meant to serve the building. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the respondent's application u/s 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The lease was determined to be of the building with the land appurtenant thereto, exempting it from the Act's provisions.
|
