1996 (10) TMI 492 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the eviction petition by one co-owner.
2. Indivisibility of the tenancy.
3. Applicability of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.
4. Effect of partition on tenancy rights.
5. Merger of tenant's interest with ownership.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the eviction petition by one co-owner:
The landlord initiated eviction proceedings u/s 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease Control Act, 1954) on grounds of wilful default in rent payment and personal need. The respondent contended that the petition was not maintainable as the shop was let out by several brothers, making the tenancy indivisible.

2. Indivisibility of the tenancy:
The High Court reversed the decisions of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, holding that the tenancy was indivisible and eviction proceedings by one co-owner were not maintainable. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the indivisibility of the tenancy is not perpetual and can be severed by partition among co-owners.

3. Applicability of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The Supreme Court emphasized that u/s 109, if the property is transferred wholly or partially, the transferee possesses all the rights of the lessor. The tenant must be informed of the transfer to be liable to pay rent to the transferee. The Court rejected the argument that partition is not a transfer within the meaning of the Act, thus making Section 109 applicable.

4. Effect of partition on tenancy rights:
The Court discussed various provisions and case laws, concluding that partition among co-owners results in each owner having definite, positive, and identifiable shares. Each co-owner can then deal with their portion independently, including initiating eviction proceedings. The Court held that the tenant cannot object to the partition but can challenge its bona fides.

5. Merger of tenant's interest with ownership:
During the appeal, the respondent purchased the remaining portion of the shop, merging his tenant interest with ownership. Consequently, he remained a tenant only for the disputed portion, making the eviction suit maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and decreed the eviction suit with costs throughout.