Vs. M.A. Mohammed Amanulla  INSC 782 (4 December 1995)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Paripoornan, K.S.(J)
1996 SCC (1) 415 JT 1995 (9) 356 1995 SCALE (7)336
O R D
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:
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
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.
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 for eviction did not lie. The Rent Control Court under those circumstances had no jurisdiction to go into
find no force in that contention.
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.
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.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.