CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 12438 of 1996 PETITIONER: HABIBUNNlSA BEGUM AND ORS. RESPONDENT: G. DORAIKANNU CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/1999 BENCH: V.N. KHARE & S.N. PHUKAN JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1999 Supp(4) SCR 473
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. K. KHARE, J. The appellant before us is the landlord of the premises,
which originally had one municipal number but now numbered as Doors Nos.
27/28, Subedar Hussain Street in the city of Chennai. It is not disputed
that the landlord leased out the premises by single lease deed along with
some structure on Door No. 27. The said tenancy was single indivisible
contract of tenancy. Subsequently, the tenant in terms of lease deed raised
certain constructions on Door No. 27 and also on Door No. 28. It further
appears that subsequently a portion of the land was acquired for
construction of road with the result the premises was separated by a road
and thus the premises were assigned separate numbers. It further appears
from the record that the tenant claiming himself to be the owner of the
structure remitted rent to the landlord in respect of the land only, which
was refused by the landlord. Subsequently, the landlord filed a suit for
ejectment of the tenant on the ground of willful default of payment of rent
as well as on the ground of dental of title. The suit was decreed on both
the grounds by the Small Causes Court at Madras. The appeal preferred
against the said decree was dismissed. The revision filed by the tenant,
was partly allowed by the High Court by modifying the decree while
affirming the findings of Courts below that the tenant had denied the title
of the landlord. Accordingly the High Court upheld the decree of ejectment
up to portion of 608 sq. ft. +147 sq. ft. at Door No. 27 but set aside the
decree of ejectment to the extent of two grounds and 2182 sq. ft. at Door
No. 28. It is against this judgment the landlord is in appeal. The cross
objection has also been filed by the tenant to the extent decree was upheld
by the High Court,
The only question that arises in this case is as to whether it was open to
the High Court to split the single tenancy by ordering partial ejectment of
the tenant from the premises let out to him. In S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand,
[1968] 1 SCR 536, it was held that where a contract of tenancy was a single
indivisible contract and in the absence of any statutory provision to that
effect , it is not open to the Court to split the tenancy. Law, therefore,
is that where there is a single indivisible contract of tenancy, it cannot
be split by a Court unless there is statutory provision to that effect. In
the present case it is not disputed that the contract of tenancy is single
indivisible contract for Door Nos. 27 and 28. It is also not disputed that
there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960 empowering the Court to order partial ejectment of a tenant from
the premises by splitting the single indivisible tenancy. For these reasons
it was not open to the High Court to split the tenancy and ordered for
partial ejectment of the tenant from the premises.
In view of the aforesaid legal position of law this appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The judgment of the High Court to the extent it allowed the
revision of the tenant is set aside and the decree of the trial court is
affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
LA. Nos. 2 and 3.
There is an inordinate delay in filing the cross objection for which there
is neither any satisfactory explanation nor any affidavit in support
thereof has been filed. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the
delay in filing the cross objection. The application for condonation of
delay is rejected. Consequently, the cross objection is rejected.
After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel appearing for the tenant
stated that in case the tenant is required to vacate the premises
immediately, he shall be put to a great hardship and for that reason he may
be allowed some time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has no objection to the said prayer. We, accordingly, direct
that the respondent-tenant shall not be evicted from the premises in
dispute till 30th June, 2000 provided he files a usual undertaking within
six weeks and also continues to pay the rent/damages for the period he
continues in possession by virtue of our order.
