- (1.) THE plalntiff executed a lease deed dated 1-2-1960 for a period of twenty years in favour of M/s Caltex India Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- for the purpose of erecting a petrol pump. By The Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India)Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited) Act 1977, being Act No. 17 of 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the Caltex Act), M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. became the successor in the interest of the original lessee. The plalntiff mortgaged its property on 12-1-1962 to Shri Ram Gopal and since then he was receiving the rent from the lessee and continued to receive the rent till April 1983 when the mortgage was redeemed by the plalntiff and the rights on the land reverted to the plalntiff. It is alleged that the redemption of the mortgage was intimated to the defendant No. 1. It was also alleged that in terms of paragraph No. 3 (d) of the lease deed, the defendant No. 1 did not exercise its option for the renewal of the lease which expired in the year 1980 and, consequently the defendant No. 1 was holding over the premises as a tenant on a month to month basis. It was also alleged that defendant No. 1 had sublet the land in favour of respondent No. 2, and was also in arrears of rent, and therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, the plalntiff issued a notice dated 13-6-1983, determining the tenancy and directing the defendants to vacate the premises upon the expiry of the period of the notice and to hand over vacant possession. Since the defendant failed to vacate the premises, the plalntiff filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendants and for the possession of the land in question. The plalntiff also prayed for the recovery of Rs. 450/- as arrears of rent and damages and also prayed for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month from the defendant from the date of the filing of the suit upto the date of the actual ejectment.
(2.) THE defendants filed their written statement denying the plalnt allegations and contended that the lease deed contemplated a provision for the renewal of the lease deed for a period of 20 years and that the defendant had exercised its right of renewal and by giving a notice dated 1-4-1980. This notice was duly received and replied by the plalntiff vide his letter dated 27-5-1980. The defendants therefore contended that since the defendant had exercised their right of renewal as per the lease deed, no cause of action arose for the plalntiff to determine the tenancy and that the action of the defendants in terminating the tenancy was wholly illegal. The defendants further contended that they are not in arrears of rent and that the entire arrears of rent had also been deposited in the Court. The defendants further submitted that their tenancy was protected by the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in view of Section 29-A read with Section 20 of the said Act and consequently the suit for possession was wholly misconceived and that the suit was not maintainable and that the notice under Sections 106 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act was defective and bad in law.
(3.) THE trial Court, after framing the issues and after considering the evidence that was brought on the record, decreed the suit for arrears of rent of Rs. 450/- but held that the plalntiff was not entitled to terminate the tenancy. The trial Court found that the plalntiff was the owner of the land and that the suit was not barred by the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, inasmuch as, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable since only the land was let out and that the Court had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit which was maintainable. The trial Court further held that the defendant had given a notice for the renewal of the lease deed, and therefore, had fulfilled the requirement contemplated under clause 3 (d) of the lease deed and that the plalntiff was bound by the terms of the lease deed and was duty bound to renew the lease deed instead of determining the lease. The trial Court found that once the option was exercised by the defendant, the plalntiff had no alternative but to renew the lease. The trial Court further held that even after the expiry of the lease deed, the rent was being received by the plalntiff, and therefore, there was a deemed presumption that the lease had been renewed by the plalntiff.;