Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
P. VEERAPPA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M.A. MOHAMMED AMANULLA
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 415 JT 1995 (9) 356
1995 SCALE (7)336
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal is
filed against the order dated September 23, 1991 made by the
Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.3019/87. The facts are
clearly not in dispute. They are stated as under:
The appellant was a tenant prior to 1959. In 1959, the
appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent
to purchase the premises for some consideration. Since the
appellant claimed that the respondent was not willing to
perform his part of the contract, he laid the suit for
specific performance. In the suit, the parties ultimately
had compromised the dispute and agreed to enhance the
consideration to a sum of Rs.38,000/-/- payable within the
specific time. Unfortunately, the appellant had not paid the
amount within the agreed time which put an end to the rights
asserted by the appellant under the contract.
When an application for eviction under Section 21 of
the Karnataka Rent Control Act was filed, the appellant
raised preliminary objection that his tenancy rights had got
merged in his right as an agreement-holder and he was in
possession of the suit-premises as an agreement-holder and
not as a tenant and thereby he disputed the title of the
respondent. The appellant sought for a decision by the Civil
Court in that behalf. The Controller negatived it and the
High Court by the impugned order affirmed the same. Thus
this appeal by special leave.
It is contended by Mrs. Kiran Suri, learned counsel for
the appellant that the tenancy rights which the appellant
had prior to 1959 stood merged with the rights as an
agreement-holder. The appellant was always ready and willing
to perform his part of the contract and was entitled to the
benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. The tenancy rights thereby stood merged with the right
as an agreement-holder and that, therefore, the application
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
for eviction did not lie. The Rent Control Court under those
circumstances had no jurisdiction to go into that question.
We find no force in that contention.
So long as the agreement subsists, it is settled law
that the lesser right of tenancy stood merged with larger
rights accrued under the agreement. But unfortunately in the
compromise itself it was recognised that the appellant was
to pay arrears of rent till the date of compromise. In other
words, the appellants recognised the reversion to his pre-
existing rights as tenant upto the date of the compromise.
In other words, subject to compliance of the terms of the
contract, his tenancy rights continued. The terms have not
been complied with and the agreement came to amend. Thereby,
the appellant’s pre-existing rights as a tenant stood
revived and the appellant and the respondent were bound by
the relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, the Rent
Controller was entitled to proceed with the matter in
accordance with law. We do not say any further since the
matter is pending before the Rent Controller. It would be
open to the appellant to raise all the defences open to him
in the Rent Control proceedings.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.