THE NORTHCAP UNIVERSITY

SECTOR-23 A, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

SCHOOL OF LAW

PROPERTY LAW PROJECT REPORT

CASE ANALYSIS
KENNETH SOLOMON V. DAN SINGH BAWA     AIR 1986
DEL. 1

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. DEBORISHA DUTTA

SUBMITTED BY: AARADHYA GUPTA

(19LLB101)
DECLARATION
I, Aaradhya do hereby solemnly sincerely affirm and declare that the contents of this project
are the outcome of an original research carried out by me.

Name- Aaradhya Gupta

Date- 5th April 2022

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.
I am highly indebted to Prof. Deborisha Dutta for their guidance and constant supervision as
well as for providing necessary information regarding the project and for their support in
completing the project. I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to person for
giving me such attention and time.

Signature

………………………………

(Ms. Deborisha Dutta)

 FACTS OF THE CASE

 Dr. (Mrs.) C.L. Sury was a lessee of house No. 72, Babar Road, New Delhi under the
respondent Dan Singh Bawa. The agreed rent was Rs. 37.82 per month. She died in
October 1967. On April 22, 1968, the landlord brought an application against the
present appellant Kenneth Solomon for the recovery of possession of the tenancy
premises.
 The eviction was claimed under Proviso (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act') on the allegations that the tenant had left no
heir and had in her lifetime parted with the possession of the premises in dispute in
favour of the appellant without the written consent of the landlord.
 The appellant defended the claim. The plea raised was that the contractual tenancy in
favour of Dr. Sury had not been determined. The tenancy rights devolved on him and
another person under a will be dated March 31, 1957.
 In case it was held by the court that he could not inherit the tenancy rights under the
will the same devolved on him as an heir being Dr. Sury's nearest kinsman.
 Issue

Did the tenancy rights devolve on the appellant under the will?

Whether the Act of disposing tenancy rights by will amount to 'parting with possession' and
entitles the landlord to claim eviction? (Since no consent was obtained from the landlord)
 Decision

A lease, as defined by Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, is a transfer of a right to
enjoy the immovable property for a term or in perpetuity in consideration of a price paid or
promised or services or other things of value to be rendered periodically or on specified
occasions to the transferor by the transferee. The right of enjoyment contemplated by this
section is an interest in the immovable property. The agreement of lease confers on the lessee
the right to possess the immovable property which is the subject matter of the lease. Lease,
being an interest in the immovable property, would be covered under the expression — 'all
my movable and immovable properties' used in the residuary clause of the will. The word
'property' includes all legal rights of a person except his rights which constitute his status or
personal condition. The court agrees that the will does not indicate any intention of the
testator to exclude the tenancy rights. On the other hand, the residuary clause shows that the
intention was to give all her movable and immovable properties except the properties for
which a specific provision was made. The tenancy rights, therefore, devolved on the
appellant under the will.

The case set up by the landlord is that the tenant had parted with the possession of the
tenancy premises. The expression —otherwise parted with the possessional has not been
defined in the Act. —'Parted with' according to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New
Edition, inter alia, means 'to relinquish'.

explains the terms 'part with' in these words —A lessee's covenant not to —the part with the
possession of the demised premises or any part thereof' is broken only if the lessee entirely
excludes himself from the legal possession of part of the premises. The expression — 'parted
with possession', therefore, means giving the legal possession acquired under the lease to a
person who was not a party to the lease agreement. Undoubtedly, there must be vesting of
possession of the tenancy premises by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not
only of physical possession but also of a right to possession. The process of parting with
possession thus starts on the execution of the will but matures only on the death of the
testator.

This vesting, in my judgment, would amount to parting with possession within the meaning
of the provisions contained in proviso (b).
"Transfer of property" according to the definition in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act
means an act by which a living person conveys property in present or in future to one or more
other living persons or himself, and one or more other living persons. True, these words
exclude transfer by will, for a will operates after the death of the testator. The Act of making
a will in itself would not attract the provisions contained in proviso (b). No landlord can
claim eviction, during the lifetime of the tenant, on the ground that the tenant had made a will
disposing of the tenancy rights. It is for the simple reason that it can be revoked at any time.
By itself, it does not vest the legal possession in the devisee. However, there is no escape
from the conclusion that by his voluntary Act the tenant parts with the possession of the
tenancy premises from the date of his death in case the will remains unrevoked. Dr. Sury by
her Act of bequeathing the tenancy rights using the will in favour of the petitioner and his
brother had parted with possession within the meaning of proviso (b). The landlord was,
therefore, entitled to claim eviction.
 Analysis
The reasoning of the court to decide the case in favour of the landlord was correct and
appropriate since the tenancy rights were parted with without the consent of the landlord. If a
tenancy right is created in favour of a tenant, he gets the right of possession of the property
and not ownership of the property. Hence, it is only the possession of the property that he can
vest in another person, only during his lifetime. The landlord will always have the right to
evict any tenant from his property until the two parties share a landlord and tenant relation. If
this case would have been decided otherwise, it would be unreasonably in favour of the
tenant and gravely unfair for the landlord.