Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishan Lal Dead Thr Lrs Saroj Bai vs Abdul Wahid Dead Thr Lrs Begum Bi ... on 24 February, 2014
:: 1 ::
Second Appeal No.1175/2011
24-2-2014.
Shri Jagtendra Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the
respondents.
This second appeal at the instance of defendants is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.9.2011 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14-A/2011 by First Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.67-A/2009 by Civil Judge Class II Seoni Malwa District Hoshangabad; whereby, suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs for eviction, has been decreed.
That, an application : I.A. No.10784/2013 has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for dismissal of second appeal on the ground that the suit house which was in dilapidated condition has collapsed on 24.7.2013 and the Municipal Council, Seoni Malwa has issued notice on 25.7.2013 to remove the debris. It is contended that now no cause of action survives; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants though does not dispute that the suit house has collapsed, however, submits that the cause of action still survives. The submissions, though attractive, have no substance for the reasons that it was the house in question which was leased out and not the land. Thus, with collapsing of the suit house, :: 2 ::
it cannot be construed that the tenancy would continue over the land which remains. In this context, reference can be had of a decision in Vannattankandy Ibrayi vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee (2001) 1 SCC 564 wherein it has been observed by their Lordships -
"20. .... Thus 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 the tenancy and therefore; Section 108(B)(e) of the Act has no application in case of premises governed by the State Rent Act when it is completely destroyed by natural calamities."
The situation is not different in the case at hand. The appellants fail to commend to any cogent material suggesting that along with the house, tenancy in land was also created. In view whereof, no cause survives for adjudication.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod