Tenancy after total destruction of premises cannot continue as of right absent a statutory basis.

Complete destruction of tenanted premises does not preserve a tenancy as of right where no legal provision is shown to continue it. The principle under section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, which allows a lessee to treat a lease as void on destruction of the property, applies in its proper statutory context; it does not make a tenancy survive automatically under State rent law after total demolition. On those facts, a person who had not been in occupation since 1992 could not insist on being treated as a continuing tenant, and the Official Liquidator was not required to accept rent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Official Liquidator could be directed to accept rent from a person claiming to continue as tenant after the tenanted premises had been completely destroyed and the applicant had not been in occupation since 1992.

Analysis: The governing principle drawn from section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act is that destruction of leased property may give the lessee an option to treat the lease as void, but that principle applies in the context of a lease governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Where the relationship is governed by the State rent law, and the tenanted premises have been completely demolished, the tenant cannot insist on continuing the tenancy merely on the basis that the relationship once existed. As no provision was shown under which the tenancy survived after complete destruction of the premises, the claimed tenancy could not be treated as subsisting.

Conclusion: The Official Liquidator could not be compelled to accept rent, as the applicant was not entitled to be treated as a continuing tenant.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenancy does not continue as of right after complete destruction of the tenanted premises where no legal provision is shown to preserve the tenancy.

---