Case Title:
Padmanabha Pillai vs Sankaran Viswambaran on 10 July, 1986
Bench:
S Padmanabhan
Parties:
Padmanabha Pillai
Sankaran Viswambaran
Order Date
10 July, 1986
Subject
This was a case of second appeal, where the plaintiff is now the appellant. The suit he had filed for declaration of tenancy rights and injunction was granted by the trial court however was dismissed by the appellate court.
Important Provisions:
Section 116 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Effect of holding over.—If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.
A tenant holding after the expiry of his term is a tenant at sufferance, which is a term useful to distinguish a possession rightful in its inception but wrongful in its continuance from a trespass which is wrongful both in its inception and in its continuance.
Overview
The appellant had rented the first floor, ground floor and 8 rooms on the second floor. After the building was purchased, it was attorned to him and he was paying a rent of rs 500/- a month. Even before the purchase was made, there were arrears in rent. Since there were arrears in rent, an eviction order was passed against the appellant from the rent control court. For seven years the order was not received, and the respondent continued to make whatever payment amounts to the appellant. When the respondent filed a petition for execution The appellant resisted by saying that payment was made by rent and superseded by a fresh agreement to continue in possession as a tenant.
Issues Raised
Whether the order superseded by a subsequent agreement between the parties is executable?
Judgement Analysis
- The finding of the trial Court in this respect was evidently perverse in relation to the evidence. Looking at the evidence the appellate court observed that the new lease arrangement that was pleaded was only a myth.
- The rent agreed to be paid to the original landlord was Rs. 4007-per month. It is admitted that when the building was purchased by the respondent the appellant attorned to him and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.
- Based on the fresh arrangement and the fresh tenancy alleged by him the appellant pleaded that the eviction order cannot be executed. The execution court by the original of Ext. Al order and the revisional court by original of Ext. A2 order rejected the contention observing that the remedy of the appellant is only by way of filing a fresh suit.
- Thus, the appellant filed OS. 301 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha for a declaration of his tenancy right based on the new rent arrangement and for injunction restraining eviction based on the order passed by the Rent Control Court.
- The respondent denied the alleged lease arrangement and resisted the claim. He contended that he only received whatever amounts were paid towards arrears and that he was only obliging the appellant by giving some time since the hotel business was being run in the building.
- Looking at the evidence the trial court accepted the appellant’s case and decreed the suit. However, the appellate court disagreed with the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
- Therefore, the second appeal was declared to be without any merit and hence dismissed. The relation to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree does not exist.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
