Sudhir Bhushan Malik, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment dated 7 -12 -1971 of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs.
(2.) The relevant facts are that defendant -respondent No. 2 Eishwa Nath Kejriwal executed the lease (Ex. 1) in favour of the plaintiff, Caltex (India) Ltd., in respect of Plot No. 101/2 situate in village Shujavad, Pargana Ralhupur, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi and buildings standing thereon for a period of ten years on a monthly rent of Rs. 220/ - with an option to have the lease renewed for a further period of ten years for setting up a service station to deal in petrol, diesel and petroleum products manufactured by the plaintiff -company. The plaintiff spent money on the land and installed petrol and diesel pumps etc. The plaintiff subsequently on 15 -5 -1965 entered into an agreement with the partnership firm Kejriwal and Sons, of which the partners were defendant No. 2 Bishwa Nath Kejriwal and his two sons, defendants Nos. 3 and 4, Krishna Kumar Kejriwal and Mohan Lal Kejriwal. Under this agreement the firm defendant No. 1 of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was given a licence by the plaintiff to carry on business on the premises leased out to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1. The licenses under the agreement was to use the service station set up by the plaintiff and deal in petrol, diesel and petroleum products marketed by the plaintiff and pay Rs. 378/ - per month. Under the terms of the licence the defendant -firm could not deal in products of any company other than the plaintiff. The plaintiff received from defendant No. 2, the landlord, the notice dated 14 -3 -1970 stating that the plaintiff had not paid rent from December, 1969, to February, 1970 and, therefore, under the terms of the lease, the lease had come to an end by forfeiture and defendant No. 2 had entered into possession of the demised premises on the 10th of March, 1970. The plaintiff thereupon wrote back stating that cheques were duty sent each month as usual and as they do not appear to have reached defendant -respondent No. 2, they were enclosing a cheque for Rs. 660/ -to clear off the arrears. Defendant -respondent No. 2 accepted payment for the months of December, January and February but refused to accept the rent for March, 1970.
(3.) The plaintiff brought the suit in the year 1970 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the property in suit comprising the land, buildings, petrol pumps etc., from removing the petrol pumps and other fixtures and fittings existing on the land and from carrying on any other business or dealing in petroleum products of any other Company on the premises in suit on the allegation that the defendants were threatening to deal in products of other Oil Companies on the premises and to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the same though under the terms of licence the defendants could not deal in the products of any other Company. It was further pleaded that the lease was still subsisting.;