2003 (3) TMI 759 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and co-ownership rights in the suit premises.
2. Validity of the landlord-tenant relationship.
3. Doctrine of merger.
4. Effect of demolition of tenancy premises on tenancy rights.
5. Rights of transferees from co-owners.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Co-ownership Rights in the Suit Premises:
The suit premises were initially owned by P. Narayana Reddy, and upon his death, his rights devolved upon his heirs, including respondent no.1. The property was subject to a partition suit, and although a preliminary decree was passed, the final decree was pending. Respondent no.1 was acknowledged as the landlord by the tenant (respondent no.2) after P. Narayana Reddy's death. The appellants acquired partial ownership through a sale deed from some co-owners but not from respondent no.1 or his sister. The court held that respondent no.1 was a co-owner and landlord, and the exact extent of his share was irrelevant for the eviction proceedings.

2. Validity of the Landlord-Tenant Relationship:
The tenant, respondent no.2, acknowledged respondent no.1 as the landlord and paid rent to him. Respondent no.3, claiming to be a tenant, initiated proceedings to deposit rent in court but was not recognized by respondent no.1. The appellants, who acquired possession from respondents no.2 and 3, claimed there was no landlord-tenant relationship between them and respondent no.1. The court upheld the eviction decree, recognizing respondent no.1 as the landlord and respondents no.2 and 3 as tenants who had attorned to him.

3. Doctrine of Merger:
The appellants argued that their tenancy rights merged with ownership, terminating the tenancy. The court explained that for merger to occur, the interests of the lessee and lessor must vest in one person in the same right and at the same time. Since the appellants only acquired partial ownership and not the entire interest, the doctrine of merger did not apply. The lease did not determine by merger as the interests of the lessee and lessor did not coalesce fully.

4. Effect of Demolition of Tenancy Premises on Tenancy Rights:
The appellants demolished the tenancy premises and reconstructed new ones. They argued that the tenancy ended as the building ceased to exist. The court held that tenancy includes both the building and the land. Destruction of the building alone does not terminate the tenancy if the land remains. The court emphasized that tenants or their successors cannot benefit from their wrongful act of demolishing the premises. The tenancy continued despite the demolition.

5. Rights of Transferees from Co-owners:
The appellants, as transferees from some co-owners, claimed co-ownership and argued that eviction proceedings were not maintainable. The court stated that co-owners cannot oust each other or commit waste without consent. Respondent no.1, being in possession through tenants, had his landlordship attorned by the tenants. The appellants, whether as co-owners or successors of tenants, could not deny respondent no.1's title without restoring possession to him. The court concluded that the appellants had no right to demolish the property or resist eviction.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the eviction decree upheld. The court maintained that respondent no.1 was the landlord and co-owner, the tenancy continued despite partial ownership transfer and demolition, and the appellants had no valid defense against eviction.