Summary
An agreement to sell tenanted premises to the tenant did not automatically terminate the tenancy. Surrender depended on the parties’ intention under Section 111 TPA. This agreement disclosed neither express nor implied surrender, leaving the landlord entitled to seek eviction. The High Court’s finding of bona fide residential need was also sustained, with conditional time to vacate.
Issues
- Whether execution of an agreement to sell automatically determined the existing lease and barred the landlord’s eviction application.
- Whether the finding of bona fide residential need warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 111(e) and (f), Transfer of Property Act, 1882Determination by express or implied surrender depended on mutual intention and conduct; this agreement did not establish either form of surrender. (¶ 26–38)
Held
- An agreement to sell was not itself an automatic substitution of purchaser–seller relations for the existing tenancy. The question was whether the agreement and circumstances showed an intention to surrender the lease expressly or by implication. (¶ 24–32)
- None of the nine conditions in the 1993 agreement addressed the tenancy’s fate or evidenced surrender. Kanthimathi depended on materially different wording indicating surrender and was distinguishable. Interpretation here was confined to the effect on tenancy, not other contractual rights. (¶ 33–40)
- The High Court’s finding of bona fide residential need was non-perverse. The retired landlord’s need to live with his family in his own house furnished no ground for interference on these facts. (¶ 41–42)
Result
Appeals dismissed. Tenant granted three months to vacate subject to usual undertaking within two weeks and payment of up-to-date arrears plus three months’ advance rent within one month.