Puthiyottil Kunhava And Ors. vs Kaniattichalil Mammadkutty on 17 July, 1989
6. The Full Bench decision in Kannan v. Kadisa, 1970 Ker LT 756 : (AIR 1971 Ker 61), relied on by the appellant to contend that the court sale will not extinguish the sub-tenancy right will not help him. What was involved in that case was sale of tenant's holding alone when sub-tenant was in possession. What the decision said is that the court sale only operates just like an assignment of a lease or mortgage. Here, under Exts. A3 and A4, the entire rights of the tenant and sub-tenant were sold and delivered and came to the owner who was thereafter in possession. It was after some time that a fresh transaction was entered into under Ext. A1. Entire rights of the tenant and sub-tenant were extinguished by the sale and delivery. The purchaser was the owner himself. The transfer involved in the sale is divestitive and investitive; acquisition of the right by the transferee and loss of it by the transferor. When the purchaser is the landlord himself, what he acquired merges in the property. There is no question of tenancy thereafter subsisting. Application filed by the respondent before the Land Tribunal for rent under Section 26 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was dismissed for the reason that Ext. A1 is hit by Section 74. That was by the same Land Tribunal which issued Exts. B1 and B5. I said so only because if the respondent was a party there and he had notice, he could have raised objection under Section 74.