1994 (7) TMI 370 - HC - Indian Laws

Lease Continues Despite Building Destruction | Mandatory Injunction Granted | Property Recovery Relief Denied

V. Kalpakam Amma Versus Muthurama Iyer Muthurkrishna

The court held that the destruction of the leased building's superstructure alone does not automatically terminate the lease if the site remains intact. ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the destruction of the subject matter of the lease automatically terminates the lease without considering the option exercised by the lessee under Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Whether the lower court correctly applied the decision in Sidharthan v. Ramadasan in light of the Supreme Court decision in Druv Dev Singh v. Harmondir Singh.Detailed Analysis:1. Automatic Termination of Lease upon Destruction of Subject Matter:The primary issue was whether the destruction of the leased building automatically terminates the lease without considering the lessee's option under Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court highlighted that Section 108(e) of the T.P. Act states, 'If by fire, tempest, or flood or violence of any army or of a mob or other irresistible force any material part of the property be wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let, the lease shall, at the option of the lessee, be void.' This provision codifies the law of frustration of lease, emphasizing that the lessee has the option to void the lease if the property is substantially destroyed.The court further examined the definition of a 'building' and concluded that a building includes the site upon which it stands. Therefore, the lease does not automatically terminate if the site remains intact. The court referred to past judgments, including George v. Peter, which held that the lease of a building includes the site unless specifically excluded. Thus, the lease continues until the site is also destroyed.2. Correct Application of Sidharthan v. Ramadasan and Druv Dev Singh v. Harmondir Singh:The court analyzed whether the lower court correctly applied the decision in Sidharthan v. Ramadasan in light of the Supreme Court decision in Druv Dev Singh v. Harmondir Singh. The court noted that in Sidharthan's case, the lease was only for the superstructure, not the land, and the superstructure was completely destroyed. Therefore, the lease was considered terminated.However, in the current case, the court found that the lease included both the building and the site. The court observed that the definition of 'building' under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, includes the site and any structures appurtenant to it. Consequently, the destruction of the superstructure alone does not terminate the lease if the site remains.The court also referenced the Supreme Court decision in Druv Dev Singh, which held that Section 56 of the Contract Act is exhaustive and principles of English law cannot be considered. This reinforced the view that the lease does not terminate automatically upon the destruction of the superstructure if the site is intact.Conclusion:The court concluded that there is no automatic termination of the lease due to the destruction of the superstructure alone. The lease continues as long as the site remains part of the leased property. The relationship between the landlord and tenant persists, and the tenant cannot unilaterally put up new constructions on the site. The court granted a mandatory injunction for the removal of unauthorized structures put up by the tenant but refused the relief for recovery of the property. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.