Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Tenant resisted the petition stating that the attempt is only a ruse to evict him. Further it is also stated that the tenant is conducting a kuri business having branch offices at various places and that all its branches are controlled by Head Office housed in the schedule premises. Further it is also stated that he has taken out the entire upstair portion from one Oliyapuram Tarwad and that even if his original landlord had sold away a portion of the property to the present landlord, landlord cannot successfully maintain a petition lest it would split up the unity and integrity of the tenancy. Further it was also stated that the tenant was unaware of the assignment and there was no attornment of tenancy by present landlord.

6. Counsel appearing for the tenant revision petitioner Sri. P.B. Krishnan submitted that the landlord is the assignee of the tenanted premises and the tenancy granted to him by the original landlord is indivisible and an assignment of a portion of the tenanted premises would not enable a splitting of the tenancy. Counsel submitted the entire upstair portion of the building was taken out on rent by him from Oliyapuram Tarwad by single entrustment. Therefore it is not open to the original landlord or the assignee landlord to split up the tenancy and seek eviction of his part. Counsel also referred to C1 commission report and submitted that on facts also it would not be possible to split up the tenancy. Counsel also referred to the description of the tenanted premises as well as oral evidence of PW.1 and also the commission report. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Brijit Raj Krishna v. Shaw & Bros. (AIR 1951 SC 186), Miss. S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand (AIR 1968 SC 438), Habibunnisa Begum v. G. Doraikanu Chettiar (AIR 2000 SC 152), Nilesh Nandkumar Shah v. Sikandar Aziz Patel (AIR 2002 SC 3073) counsel contended it would not be possible to split up the tenancy in the absence of any statutory provision in the Kerala Rent Act. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in Fathima v. Saidali Bafakhy (2001(2) KLT 857) and Tellicherry W. Co-op. Society v. Safiya Beebi Umma (2002 (3) KLT 863). Counsel also submitted Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act would enable splitting up of tenancy if the lease is governed by the T.P. Act and not by the Rent Act. Reference was also made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Mohar Singh v. Devi Charan (AIR 1988 SC 1365) and Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Goundappa Amabadas Bukate (AIR 1997 SC 998). Counsel also submitted if a portion is not separately demarcated no splitting is possible even if rent is apportioned. Reference was made to the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Amar Prosad v. Arun Kumar (AIR 1979 Cal. 367) and Sumant Chandra Mishra v. Anjali Ghatak (AIR 1993 Cal. 275). Reference was also made to the decisions of the Apex Court in AIR 2002 SC 3073 (supra) and Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee (AIR 2001 (1) SCC 564). Further counsel also submitted no right of eviction can be conferred on a landlord by recourse to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Counsel made reference to the following decisions. AIR 1951 SC 115 (supra), Puweda Venketeswaran v. C.V. Ramana (AIR 1976 SC 869), Lelitha v. Aysumma (1977 KLT 587), V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (AIR 1979 SC 1745), Pradesh Kumar Bajpai v. Bindo Bihari Sarkar ((1980) 3 SCC 348), K.K. Krishnan v. M.K. Vijaya Raghavan ((1980) 4 SCC 88), Joy v. Stephen Jacob (1984 KLT 72), Prithvichand Ramchand Sablok v. S.Y. Shinde (1993) 3 SCC 271 and (2001) 1 SCC 564 (supra).

7. Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord Sri. M.S. Narayanan on the other hand, contended that though a landlord cannot split up the unity and integrity of the tenancy and recover possession of a part of the demised premises from the tenant Section 109 of the T.P. Act would enable an assignee of a part of the reversion to exercise all the rights of the landlord in respect of the portion respecting which the reversion is so assigned. Counsel also referred to the commission report and oral evidence adduced and submitted that the tenancy in the upstair portion has been specifically demarcated and therefore when a part of the leased premises is assigned, the assignee can seek eviction of that part and the tenant has no legal right to object. Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Pyrelalsa v. Garanchandsa (AIR 1965 MP 1), AIR 1997 SC 998 (supra), AIR 1998 SC 1365 (supra), Sardarilal v. Narayanlal (AIR 1980 MP 8), Devasy George v. Lekskmi Amma (AIR 1956 TC 265), B.P. Pathak v. Riyazuddin (AIR 1976 MP 55, 1994 (1) CCC 911, 2000 (4) AIHCC 3070, Ram Chandra v. Ram Saran (AIR 1978 All. 173) etc.