Gurusharan Sharma, J.:— This Revision has been filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), wherein the defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2002, passed by the First Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, in Eviction Title Suit No. 6 of 2000, directing the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord.
2. The Branch Office of the United India Insurance Company Limited was located in the ground floor of the building situated over plot nos. 211.C/1, C/11, 214, 13/1, 214, B/2, 213(3), appertaining to Khata no. 11 at Doranda of Ranchi town, bearing Municipal Holding no. 32, having an area measuring more or less 1500 sq.ft
3. The owner of the aforesaid premises let it out to the defendant at a monthly rental of Rs. 5451/- for a fixed period of five years, commencing from 1.6.1995 and ending on 31.5.2000 by virtue of a registered deed of lease. The tenant was given option for renewal of the lease for another five years, subject to the increase of rent by 25% and on the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties.
4. As per the aforesaid renewal clause of the lease deed, the tenant did not exercise its option for renewal of the lease by giving notice to the landlord three months' prior to its expiry. The lease deed expired on 31.5.2000
5. On 8.6.2000, the tenant in its letter to the landlord requested to renew the lease of the premises with effect from 1.6.2000 for a period of five years, with 25% escalation at monthly rental of Rs. 6813.75 paise enclosing a cheque towards rental for the month of June, 2000.
6. The landlord returned the said cheque with a forwarding letter stating that rent in future would only be accepted only after a registered lease deed is executed between the parties. No step was taken by the tenant thereafter and as such the land lord asked the tenant to vacate the premises on or before 15.7.2000 and hand over vacant possession of the same to him.
7. On 28.6.2000 the landlord again requested the tenant to vacate the suit premises. On failure of the tenant to vacate the premises, after expiry of the period of lease on 31.5.2000 as also within the time allowed till 15.7.2000, the landlord sent another letter dated 18.7.2000 to the tenant, stating that if the suit premises was not vacated immediately, a suit would be filed in the Court for eviction as also for damages @ Rs. 1000/- per day for illegal occupation after 31.5.2000
8. Again on 25.7.2000, a letter was sent to the tenant asking to vacate the premises and pay the damage @ Rs. 1000/- per day to the landlord, restricting his claim of damages only from 16.7.2000 onward, although he was entitled to the damage with effect from 1.6.2000
9. On 16.8.2000, the plaintiff filed the Eviction Title Suit no. 6 of 2000 seeking relief for a decree of eviction against the defendant under the Act directing him to vacate the suit premises and to pay damages.
10. The defendant appeared, filed written statement and contested the suit. According to the defendant it was not cor rect to say that no step for renewal of the lease was taken. On 8.6.2000 the tenant in its letter requested for renewal on en hancement of rent and sent one month's rental at 25% increased rate. It was al ways ready and willing for renewal of the lease and also acted accordingly. It was further pleaded that, in fact, the plaintiffs wanted to increase the rental of the gen erator facility provided by him to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month, which was not accepted by the defendant and thereafter the plaintiff withdrew the generator facility and asked the defendant not to keep its generator inside the boundary. It was only for the disagreement of the defendant to increase the generator's rental, the plaintiff declined to renew the lease for further period and filed the suit.
11. The parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary, in the suit. The lease deed, which expired on 31.5.2000, was marked as Ext. 2. The defendant's letter dated 8.6.2000 was marked as Ext. 3 and the plaintiff's letters dated 24.7.2000, 25.7.2000 and 18.7.2000 were respectively marked as Exts. 4, 5 and 6. The plaintiff had executed power of attorney in favour of his father, which was marked as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff's father was examined in the suit as PW. 1.
12. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant, the Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as D.W 1. Copy of the said lease deed was marked Ext. A. Letters dated 6.4.1995, 15.6.2000, 15.6.2000, 26.6.2000, 23.5.2000, 28.6.2000 and 21.6.2000 were respectively marked as Exts. B, C, D, E, F, H and G.
13. Section 11(i)(e) of the Act provides tenant's eviction after expiry of the fixed terms tenancy. It was the defendant, who had to take step for renewal of the lease, but it failed to exercise option three months' prior to the expiry of lease, for its renewal as provided.
14. P.W 1 stated that the period of tenancy as per Ext. 2 expired on 31st May, 2000, and thereafter the plaintiff had also sent the draft of lease agreement for further period, but thereafter the defendant did not take any step for renewal of the lease. I, therefore, find that inspite of giving opportunity by plaintiff to the defendant for renewal of the lease, the defendant failed to renew the same after expiry of the period of lease on 31st May, 2000. Hence, the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of expiry of lease under section 11(1)(d) of the Act was maintainable and the defendant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises.
15. So far as the defendant's allegation that the cause for non-renewal of the lease was the disagreement to enhance the rental of generator facility provided by the plaintiff was concerned, I find that if it was true then there was no question of sending the draft lease deed by the plaintiff for renewal of the lease.
16. Admittedly, the defendant did not take step for renewal of the lease before expiry of the lease, Ext. 2 and even after the plaintiff sent the draft lease deed, no step was taken by them for execution of a fresh lease immediately thereafter. So, I am of the view that the defendant's allegation regarding the generator matter was not established.
17. In the present case after expiry of the lease for a specified period of five years, the lease (sic— lessee) is bound to give back the premises to the lessor. The lessor has neither received rent from the lessee, who is continuing in possession nor did any act indicating his intention to treat the lessee as his tenant holding over. Hence, the landlord was not bound to give notice to quit before instituting the suit for eviction. Here the contractual tenancy, to which the rent control legislation applied has expired by efflux of time and the tenant is continuing in possession of the suit premises, the said possession is unauthorized and the tenant is accordingly a trespasser.
18. Possession of tenant cannot be held to be lawful by virtue of the principle of holding over, as element of consent of the part of the landlord is missing in the present case. Notice to vacate indicates that the landlord never consented to continuance of the lessee in possession of the demised premises, as per the provisions of section 116 of the T.P Act.
19. In the aforesaid circumstance, I find ho reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree in this Revision. It is dismissed, having no merit. No costs.
Comments