- (1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 59 of 2008, Govind Lal Arora and others v. M/s. Dena Bank and another, by which the suit was decreed in favour of the opposite parties. Sri Pratish Kumar holding brief of Sri Rajeev Sharan learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the Court below committed a manifest error of law by decreeing the suit and failed to consider the facts and law as the opposite parties have themselves admitted in para-10 of the suit that tenancy was on month to month basis as per provision of section 116 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as T.P. Act) and if the tenancy is as per provisions of section 116 of the T.P. Act then the tenancy can only be terminated as per the provisions of section 106 of the T.P. Act. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act runs as under: 116. Effect of holding over.--If a lessee or under- lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.
(2.) Learned Counsel also submits that merely asking for the vacant possession does not amount to terminate the lease deed and in the instant case, admittedly, the opposite parties have demanded the vacant possession and the tenancy was not specifically terminated by notice under section 106 of T.P. Act. The notice issued for vacating the premises is bad in the eyes of law and cannot be treated as notice under section 106 of T.P. Act. In support of his argument, learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied on a ratio laid down by this Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 192 of 1997; Central Bank of India v. Manohar Lal and others, 1997 31 AllLR 562 decided on 20.8.1997 where the Hon'ble Court has held as under: The effect of holding over is that the tenancy in the absence of contract to the contrary shall be deemed to have been renewed from year to year or from month to month according to the purpose for which the property is leased as is specified in section 106 of T.P. Act. The purpose of the lease was neither for agricultural nor for manufacturing purpose. If it was a lease for any other purpose, then the nature of lease which stood renewed as a result of holding over will be a lease from month to month. It may also be mentioned that there is no agreement between the parties to the contrary. It may further be mentioned that in the lease the rent was payable monthly and it was not a case where the landlord reserved yearly rent. Consequently on the basis of the case and in view of sections 106 and 116 of Transfer of Property Act renewed case will be monthly lease which could be terminated by month's notice. He also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. Smt. Pushpawati VII (Dead) now Harbansh Lal VII and another, 2003 52 AllLR 129. Thus, the finding given in the impugned order is perverse and is liable to be set aside. He again submits, the Court below exceeded in its jurisdiction to award the damages @ Rs. 2000/- per day, without any basis, evidence and pleadings on record. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Ahmad Ali v. Mohd. Jamal Uddin, 1963 AIR(All) 581 (V 50 C 169) where it was observed as under: A notice terminating the tenancy may include a demand for possession but a notice only demanding possession cannot be interpreted as a notice terminating the tenancy.
(3.) Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order dated 3.7.2010 may kindly be set aside. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and gone through the material available on record.;