AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 4453 ::2000 AIR SCW 4592 ::2001 SCFBRC 108 ::(2001) WLC(SC)CVL 84 ::(2001) 1 All RentCas 325 ::2001 (1) SCC 564 ::2000 (8) Scale 396 ::(2000) 8 Scale 396.2 ::2001 (1) All CJ 784 ::(2001) 1 CurCC 55 ::(2001) 1 AllMR 548 (SC) ::2001 (1) All MR 548 ::(2001) 43 All LR 298 ::2001 HRR 4 ::(2001) 1 RentLR 547 ::(2001) 1 SCJ 332 ::2001 (1) RenCJ 268 ::2000 (8) Supreme 553 ::2001 (1) Andh LD 77 ::2001 (1) SRJ 367 ::(2001) 1 JT 96 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Kerala)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. N. Khare, S. N. Phukan , JJ

(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965) , S.2, S.11— Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.108(B)(e)— Destruction of tenanted premises by fire/natural calamity - Tenancy stands extinguished - Tenant cannot assert possession under S. 108(B)(e) of Transfer of Property Act - Vacant site not covered by definition of 'Building' under Rent Act - Landlord cannot recover possession of vacant site under Rent Act - But, can file Civil Suit. Hind Rubber Ind. v. Tayebhaj, AIR 1996 Bom 389 and V. Kalapakam Amma v. Mathurama Iyer, AIR 1995 Ker 99, Overruled. Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.9— The tenancy of a shop presupposes a property in existence and there cannot be subsisting tenancy where the property is not in existence. When the tenanted shop has been completely destroyed by fire the tenancy right stands extinguished as the demise must have a subject matter and if the same is no longer in existence, there is an end of the tenancy. S. 108(B)(e) of the Transfer of Property Act has no application in case of premises governed by the State Rent Act. Therefore, when the tenanted premises is completely destroyed by natural calamities tenant cannot resist dispossession on strength of S. 108(B)(e) of Transfer of Property Act. Since the words "parts of building" used in definition of word 'Building' under State Rent Act do no....