Madan Pal v. Bashanti Kumar Shit .

1. C.R No. 587 of 1983 and C.R No. 588 of 1983 have been heard together. C.R No. 587 of 1983 is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 11th Dec. 1982 passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge, Bankura in S.C.C Suit No. 10 of 1978 decreeing a sum of Rs. 720/- as arrear rent from Shraban 1378 B.S to Ashar 1381 B.S The subject matter of challenge in C.R No. 588 of 1983 is the judgment and decree dt. 11th Dec. 1982 passed by the same Small Cause Court Judge, Bankura in S.C.C Suit No. 28 of 1978 decreeing a sum of Rs. 720/- as arrear rents from Shraban 1381 B.S to Ashar 1384 B.S

2. The opposite party filed the said 2 suits for recovery of arrear rent upon the allegations that one Purna Chandra Chakraborty was the owner of the disputed premises pertaining to holding No. 148 of Kethar Danga Mahalla within Bankura Municipality. He let out the premises to the O.P plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 45/- payable according to the Bengalee Calendar Month. The O.P sublet a portion of the premises described in Schedule ‘Ka’ to the plaint which comprises one room only at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- payable according to the Bengali Calendar Month, the petitioner/defendant defaulted in payment of rents for the periods mentioned above. It was further alleged that opposite party brought an ejectment suit against the petitioner and during the pendency of the suit the petitioner and his 2 brothers purchases the suit premises from the heirs of Purna Chandra Chakraborty and thus the O.P became the tenant under the petitioner and his brothers.

3. The petitioner/defendant contested the suits by filing written statements in which it was pleaded inter alia that he transferred his tenanted room long before to the heirs of Purna Satya Kinkar and so there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the relevant time.

4. In Title Appeal No. 60 of 1981 arising out of Title Suit No. 30 of 1978, the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the O.P against the petitioner and arrear rent from Shraban to Chaitra 1384 B.S Relying upon the judgment and decree in the said Title Appeal the learned S.C.C Judge held that there was relation of landlord and the tenant between the parties during the suit periods and as the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent he passed decrees for arrear of rents in the 2 suits. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has moved this court in revision and obtained the present Rule.

5. The admitted facts are that the original owner of premises, Purna Chandra Chakraborty, let out the suit premises to the O.P at a rental of Rs. 45/- per month and the O.P in his turn sublet a portion of the suit premises namely one room as described in Schedule ‘Ka’ to the petitioner at a rental of Rs. 20/- per month payable according to Bengali Calendar Months. It is also not in dispute that the O.P got decrees for arrear rents from Jaistha 1369 B.S to Aghrayan 1371 B.S and Poush 1374 to Asar 1375 B.S in earlier suits. It is also not disputed that the petitioner acquired the interest of the superior landlord to the extent of 1/3rd share. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that by virtue of the purchase of the interest of the superior landlord the sub-tenancy between the parties has determined and consequently there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the relevant time and as such the impugned decrees for arrear rents are unsustainable.

6. I am unable to accept this contention in as much as the doctrine of marger is not applicable in this case. Under Cl. (d) of S. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease of immovable property determines in case the interest of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right. When a leasehold and a reversion coincide there is a merger of the lesser estate in the greater. The lesser estate is merged, i.e sunk or drowned in the greater. The lease determines for it sinks into the reversion. Thus if the lessor purchases the lessees interest or the lessee purchases the lessor's interest, the lease is extinguished. The interest of the lessor and the lessee must be in the whole of the property, otherwise there is no merger. The interest of the lessor and the lessee in the whole of the property should become vested at the same time in one person and in the same right, i.e there must be the union of the entire interest of the lessor and the lessee. Thus a lease is not extinguished because the lessee purchases a part of the reversion. Again the Union of estate cannot occur if there is any intervening estate. In the instant case the petitioner has acquired only 1/3rd interest of the lessor. Moreover, the petitioner has not acquired the interest of the O.P who is lessor. He has acquired only a partial interest of the superior landlord or the lessor of the first degree. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been the union of the entire interest of the lessor and the lessee. There is no merger even though by virtue of the purchase the petitioner has become one of the co-sharer landlords of the O.P but the sub-tenancy created by the O.P in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to have determined. The learned S.C.C Judge has, therefore, rightly passed decrees for arrear rents in favour of the O.P against the petitioner.

7. The revisional application is, therefore, dismissed and the Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated.

Petition dismissed.