Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(24) This argument of the counsel for the appellant is fallacious. A person remaining in occuption of the premises let to him after the determination of or expiry of the period of the tenancy is commonly though in law not accurately, called 'a staututory tenant'. Such a person is not a tenant at all : he has no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him. He has merely the protection of the statute in that he cannot be turned out so long as he pays the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy. His right to remain in possession after the determination of the contractual tenancy is personal : it is not capable of being transferred or ass igned, and devolves on his death only in the manner provided by the statute. The right of a lessee from a landlord on the other hand is an estate or interest in the premises and in the absence of a contract to the contrary is transferable and the premises may be sub-let by him. But with the determination of the lease, unless the tenant acquires the right of a tenant holding over, by acceptance of rent or by asset to his continuing in possession by the landlord, the terms and conditions of the lease are extinguised, and the rights of such a person remaining in possession are governed by the statute alone (see Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji v. Bedhi and others. ). While interpretting the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) the Supreme Court, further, held : "In this clause the expression 'tenant' apparently means a contractual tenant, for it authorises a landlord to recover possession of premises if the tenant has unlawfully assigned, transferred his interest in the premises or has unlawfully sublet the premises. A statutory tenant has to interest in the premises occupied by him, and he has no estate to assign or transfer. To read the clause as meaning that an assignment or transfer of any premises which attracts liability to eviction would be only in respect of a contractual tenancy whereas subletting which invites that penalty may be in respect of tenancies- contractual and statutory alike, would be to attribute to the Legislature an intention to impute two different meanings to the expression 'tenant' in claus (e) of S. 13(1). By clause (d) the Legislature has recognised the right of a landlord to recover possession if the tenant has without being so authorised by contract, sublet in whole or in part the premises, or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein A statutory tenant having no interest in the property it was plainly unnecessary to prohibit transfer of what was inffective. Nor can there be letting of the premises by a statutory tenant, for letting postulates a transfer of the right to enjoy property made for a certain time, express or implied, in consideration of price paid or promised and a statutory tenant has merely a personal right to resist eviction." Again in Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. and another v. Happy Homes (P) Ltd., , the Supreme Court held that 'since a statutory tenant has merely a personal right to protect his possession, and has no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him, he cannot convey an estate or interest which he does not possess. A statutory tenant by parting with possession forfeits the protection of the Act, and unless the statute expressly provides or clearly implies otherwise, the person inducted by him cannot claim the protection of the Act'.