Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. There cannot be a building without a site and once a structure is put up in the land, the site becomes part of the structure and thereafter, the site becomes part of the building. The definition of 'building' in the Rent Control Act also supports the view. Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act may not be helpful in deciding the relationship between the parties, when have to consider the question on the basis of the definition under the Rent Control Act.

29. In this case, it can be seen that the site is also part of the building from the following averments in the plaint. It reads thus :

"The tenancy arrangement with the 1st defendant became terminated by non-payment of rent from August 1976, abandonment of the building and relinquishment of possession by the 1st defendant, and by the acceptance of relinquishment and taking over of possession by the plaintiff. There was thus a surrender of the building and site. Further the contract of tenancy related to the building and with the loss of the building there was an extinction of the tenancy."

30. The learned District Judge has held in this case that the building i.e. the structure is not in existence. It is seen from Exts. Cl and A10 that except a small portion of the wall on the south-western side of the structure, the remaining portions have fallen down. It is not habitable. But in view of the definition of building under the Rent Control Act, that site also forms part of the building. If so, it has to be held that there is no frustration and the landlord tenant relationship cannot come to an end. As held in (1990) 2 Ker LT 187: (AIR 1991 Kerala 55) there is no complete destruction of the building; only then the principle of Section 56 of the Contract Act read with Section 108 (e) of the T.P. Act can be applied. The relationship will continue till the appellant is evicted under due process of law.