LAWS(KER)-2004-1-38

MAR APPRAEM KURI COMPANY LTD Vs. DIX

Decided On January 09, 2004
Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd Appellant
V/S
Dix Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES the limitation on the right of the landlord against splitting up of the unity and integrity of the tenancy, inhering in the inhibitions of his own contract, visits the assignee of the part of the reservation is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) IT is trite law that a landlord cannot split up the unity and integrity of the tenancy and recover possession of a part of the demised premises from the tenant. Law is well settled that where there is a single indivisible contract of tenancy it cannot be split up by a court unless there is statutory provision to that effect or by a contract between the parties. Alienatio rei praefertur juri accrescendi, means, alienation is favoured by law rather than accumulation and the assignee is clothed with all the rights and liabilities of the assignor. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act however, provides a statutory exception to this rule and enables an assignee of a part of the reversion to exercise all the rights of the landlord in respect of the portion respecting which the reversion is so assigned subject to the other covenant running with the land. Further, while seeking eviction the assignee has to independently show that the tenancy is divisible on facts and to make out grounds available under Section 11 of the Rent Act. The inter relationship between S. 109 of the T.P. Act and S. 11 of the Rent Control Act would be explained by us in the later part of this order. For disposal of this case we may refer to the parties petitioner as landlord and respondent as tenant.

(3.) TENANT resisted the petition stating that the attempt is only a ruse to evict him. Further it is also stated that the tenant is conducting a kuri business having branch offices at various places and that all its branches are controlled by Head Office housed in the schedule premises. Further it is also stated that he has taken out the entire upstair portion from one Oliyapuram Tarwad and that even if his original landlord had sold away a portion of the property to the present landlord, landlord cannot successfully maintain a petition lest it would split up the unity and integrity of the tenancy. Further it was also stated that the tenant was unaware of the assignment and there was no attornment of tenancy by present landlord.