Padmanabha Pillai vs Sankaran Viswambaran on 10 July, 1986
10 July, 1986
This was a case of second appeal, where the plaintiff is now the appellant. The suit he had filed for declaration of tenancy rights and injunction was granted by the trial court however was dismissed by the appellate court.
Section 116 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Effect of holding over.—If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.
A tenant holding after the expiry of his term is a tenant at sufferance, which is a term useful to distinguish a possession rightful in its inception but wrongful in its continuance from a trespass which is wrongful both in its inception and in its continuance.
The appellant had rented the first floor, ground floor and 8 rooms on the second floor. After the building was purchased, it was attorned to him and he was paying a rent of rs 500/- a month. Even before the purchase was made, there were arrears in rent. Since there were arrears in rent, an eviction order was passed against the appellant from the rent control court. For seven years the order was not received, and the respondent continued to make whatever payment amounts to the appellant. When the respondent filed a petition for execution The appellant resisted by saying that payment was made by rent and superseded by a fresh agreement to continue in possession as a tenant.
Whether the order superseded by a subsequent agreement between the parties is executable?