Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for a decree directing the defendants to renew the lease of certain land specified at the foot of the plaint for a further period of 30 years with effect from 10th May, 1972. Although the defendants were three in number, the real defendant is only one, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the other two defendants being surplusage, and indeed the name of the third defendant-respondent Sri N. C. Saxena, Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh was deleted from the array of the parties in this Court.
(2.) The earstwhile princely State of Rampur entered into an agreement dated 28th October, 1974 with M/s. Juggi Lal Kamlapat Singhania agreeing to grant certain land on certain terms. The plaintiff company came to acquire the rights of M/s. Juggi Lal Kamlapat under that agreement with certain modifications in a series of transactions which it is not material to detail in this judgment, inasmuch, as the then Government of Rampur made the grant of 39.08 acres of land to the plaintiff by an instrument dated 29th June, 1949, a copy of which is Ext. 2 on the record. The instrument, after setting forth the earlier transactions shows that the plaintiff company, referred to as the lessee in the agreement "is now in possession of 39.08 acres and whereas the lessee has requested the lessor (Government of Rampur) to execute the deed of lease in favour of the lessee to which the lessor has agreed, it is hereby mutually agreed and declared as under:-- "(1) That the lease will operate from 10-5-1942 and will terminate on 9th May, 1972. (2) That the said land of 39.08 acres which is now in possession of the Company will be held by the lessee free of rent during the continuance of this lease. (3) That it is definitely understood and agreed that all the buildings, bungalows factory, godowns, out-houses, offices and other erections and fixtures whether permanent or temporary, boundary walls, chimmeys, tube-wells, roads trolly lines and other appurtenances constructed by J. K. Gas plant Manufacturing Company Rampur Limited and J. K. Food Products Limited, Rampur State now owned and possessed by the Lessee will be deemed to have constructed with the consent of the Lessor and the Lessee has the right to construct other buildings which may be required for the development of the Lessee's work. (4) That the plot leased out will be utilized by the Lessee for its requirements without any interference on the part of the lessor. (5) That the lessee with the consent of the lessor can transfer its lease-hold rights for the unexpired period of lease but the sub-lessee will also be bound by the terms and conditions hereby agreed by the parties. (6) That on the expiry of the period of lease it can be renewed for a further period of 30 years on the same terms and conditions. After the lapse of 60 years from the date of registration 10th May. 1942 of J. K. Gas plant Manufacturing Company Limited the Company shall have the option to acquire the full ownership of the said land of 39.08 acres on payment of a sum of Rs. 19,500/- to the lessor. (7) That the lessee will not commit such acts in respect of the said land which will deteriorate the present value of the land. (8) That in the event of the lease not being renewed on the expiry of the period of the lease, the Lessee will be entitled to sell or remove the buildings, plant, machinery, fittings and fixtures installed thereon unless the State pays to the lessees compensation at a figure to be mutually agreed upon."
(3.) These are all the terms of the so-called lease and I have quoted them in extenso because the decision of the case turns upon their interpretation. The few more facts relevant for the purposes of the decision of this case are that when the plaintiff applied for the renewal of the lease to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, which had in the meanwhile come to acquire all the rights and the liabilities of the lessor under the said grant, on the merger of princely State of Rampur in the Union of India, the Government of Uttar Pradesh informed the plaintiff, by letter dated 30th March, 1972, that the Governor had been pleased to decide not to renew the lease, without assigning any reason therefor, the suit was then filed after serving a notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. The defence was that the land was originally let out by the princely State of Rampur for the purposes of promoting industrial development in the area but that object was never achieved and the Company was not functioning properly in spite of the help rendered by the Government of Rampur and by the Government of the State of U. P. The reasons pleaded by it to justify the refusal to renew the lease would appear to be those contained in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the written statement. They run as follows:-- "13. That in the meanwhile the industrial activity of the company came to a virtual standstill and ultimately the company gave up its industrial activity altogether. All the machinery was dismantled and removed, the factory was shut down, and the office shifted, and the very object of granting the facilities, incentives, concessions to the plaintiff, for generating employment and industrial production, was set at nought by the plaintiff company itself. 14. That thus the very nexus of the lease granted by the defendant No. 1, predecessor to the plaintiff has been lost and the plaintiff has no right to renewal of the same. 15. That the plaintiff is not entitled to any renewal of the lease for the simple reason that the lease was without consideration. The major consideration in the mind of the predecessor of the State Government and of the defendant No. 1 itself, viz., generation of employment and industrial production, has come to an end, and the defendant No. 1 has heavily suffered in the process financially in the form of each (sic cash) assistance and interest etc." It has been added in paragraph 18 that the State of Uttar Pradesh never objected to the removal of its building by the plaintiff from the land nor did it seek any extension of time for doing so. It is then said that the plaintiff ceased to have any rights in the buildings. Lastly it was averred in paragraph 23 of the written statement that the State of Uttar Pradesh had already taken proceedings under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and "all the rights of the parties if any shall be decided in those proceedings" and that the present suit was, therefore, not maintainable,;