A. ARUMUGAM CHETTIYARversusSMT. LOKANAYAKAMMA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 240
- Decided
- 13 February 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The mortgage deed indicated an implied surrender of the tenancy, and the appellant was deemed only a mortgagee.
Summary
The appellant, Arumugam Chetiyar, occupied a house as a tenant from 1971. In 1977 the landlord executed a mortgage deed in favour of the appellant. The issue was whether the mortgage deed implied a surrender of the appellant's tenancy rights, thereby converting him merely into a mortgagee. The trial court and the Karnataka High Court held that the terms of the deed conclusively indicated an implied surrender of the tenancy and ordered the appellant’s eviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, relying on earlier decisions interpreting the Transfer of Property Act, and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appellant’s claim to tenancy was rejected and the eviction stood.
Issues considered
- Whether a mortgage deed executed by a landlord in favour of the tenant amounts to an implied surrender of the tenant's rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A A. ARUMUGAM CHETTIYAR
v.
SMT. LOKANAYAKAMMA AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
B [KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
M01tgage-Jmplied sun·ender of light in the house as a tenant-Tenns
C of moTtgage deed conclusive on swTender of tenant's rights-ConcwTent
findings of fact-Not inteifered with.
Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malaga &
Ors, AIR (1976) 1565; Gambangi Appalaswamy Naidu & Ors. v. Bhra
Venkataramanayya Patra, AIR (1984) SC 1728); Nand Lal & Ors. v. Sukh
D Dev &Am:, [1987] Supp. SCC 87 andNemichand v. Onkar Lal, AIR (1991)
SC 2046, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 146 of
1995.
E From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.94 of the Karnataka High
Court RF.A. No. 20 of 1988.
P .P. Singh for the Appellant.
P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondents.
F
The following order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant was put in possession of the house in dispute as a
tenant in the year 1971. The landlord mortgaged the house with the tenant
G by a .deed dated April 28, 1977. The question before the High Court was
whether the mortgage - deed resulted in an implied surrender of the
appellant's right in the house as a tenant. The trial Court and the High
Court have concurrently found that the terms of the motgage,deed con-
clusively show that there was implied surrender of the tenant's rights. On
the said findings the Courts below have directed the eviction of the
H appellant.
610
A.A CHETTIYAR v. LOKANAYAKAMMA 611
It is not necessary for us to go into the question in detail as the A
principles have been authoritatively settled by this Court in Shah
Matlmradas Magan/al & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malaga & Ors., AIR
(1976) 1565, Gambangi Appalaswamy Naidu & Ors. v. Bhra
Venkataramanayya Patra, AIR (1984) SC 1728, Nand Lal & Ors. v. Sukh
Dev & Anr., [1987] Supp. SCC 87 and in NemiChand v. Onkar Lal, AIR
(1991) SC 2046. The High Court on the basis of the law laid down by this B
Court in the above mentioned judgments has come to the conclusion that
the deed of mortgage in the· present case indicates that there was surrender
of tenancy and the appellant wa·s only (l mortgagee. We do not see any
ground to interfere with the concurrent findings reached by the Courts
below. C·
The Appeal is dismissed. No. costs.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.