Y. JOSEPH Vs. PARVATHY CHELLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A row of shop rooms under the same roof belonging to deceased Raman Nadar and inherited by his daughter, the plaintiff, were occupied by the four defendants under rent arrangement coming within the ambit of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The building got destroyed by flood. Though the Trial Court accepted the contention of defendants 2 and 3 that their rooms were only partially destroyed and decreed the suit for declaration of title and possession and mandatory injunction to remove the new construction as against the first defendant alone and directed the plaintiff to the rent control court as against defendants 2 and 3, the appellate court found that the entire building was completely destroyed and decreed the suit in full against defendants 1 to 3, since the plaintiff compromised the matter with the 4th defendant. Third defendant did not challenge the decree and defendants 1 and 2 alone are the appellants. The factual finding that the entire building was destroyed and thereafter the appellants re-constructed the same is not disputed. The only point raised before me is whether the tenancy is continuing and if so the decree could be sustained.

(2.) Appellants disputed the correctness of the law laid down in Thomas v. Moran Mar Baselios Ougen 1979 KLT 596 and approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Sidharthan v. Ramdasan 1984 KLT 538 and wanted me to refer the question to a Full Bench, since those decisions have not taken note of contra views expressed in various other decisions. After having considered the matter in detail, I am in agreement with the views expressed in those two decisions and I do not feel the necessity of a reference.

(3.) This is a case in which tenancy was exclusively of the building alone and not the land on which it stood or appurtenant thereto. The only person who raised any claim to the land was the 2nd defendant who denied the tenancy and his claim was only on the basis of adverse possession. That plea was found against and he was found to be a tenant. The case of the plaintiff and the finding of the appellate court is that after the entire building was destroyed and the plaintiff came into possession on extinguishment of the tenancy, the defendants unauthorisedly made the construction. The question is whether destruction of the subject matter put an end to the lease or whether the appellants are entitled to continue in the newly constructed building on the ground that the tenancy is continuing.