- (1.) THE present revision has been filed by the tenant under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 16-8-1985 passed by Sri D. C. Srivastava, IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in S. C. C. Suit No. 117 of 1982.
(2.) BY the decree which is impugned in the present revision, respondent's suit for eviction of the applicant from the accommodation and land in suit, which in the common parlance is called 'petrol pump' and for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month w. e. f. 1-7-80 till the date of eviction has been decreed with cost. For the purpose of effective disposal of the revision, facts of the case which are not disputed may be briefly stated as follows:- M/s. Kailash Motors (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') under an agreement dated 4-71960 let out the property in suit (hereinafter called 'building') to M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company on rent of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of ten years with the liberty to get the lease renewed for another period of ten years. Subject matter of lease was open space of land with right to construct oil dispensing pump with show room and lavatory. The tenant M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company was a sister concern of M/s. ESSO, and it was M/s. ESSO which owned and controlled the tenant M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company. The lease at the first instance expired on 3-7-1970 before which, on 12-3-1970, the lessee exercised its right of renewal but no agreement deed of lease was executed for further period of ten years though the tenancy continued and the lessee, namely, M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company continued to remain tenant of the property in suit. In the year 1974, ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as 'the ESSO Acquisition Act') was enacted by the Parliament for the purposes of acquiring rights and interest of the ESSO and vesting it in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The Central Government subsequently transferred its rights which it had acquired from ESSO under the ESSO Acquisition Act to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant' ). The applicant consequent to entrustment of the assets acquired from M/s. ESSO by the Central Government, became lessee of the property in suit. The stipulated period of tenancy, at the first hand had expired on 3-7-1970 whereafter the next ten year's period of lease for which the Standard Vacuum Oil Company had exercised the option by seeking renewal on 12-3-1970 also came to an end in March 1980. Despite that the tenancy continued between the lessor and lessee inasmuch as the landlord did not exercise its right of seeking eviction of the lessee by giving notice. An oral request appears to have been made to the applicant on 14-6-1980 by the landlord to vacate the premises but no notice of such a request appears to have been taken. A letter by the applicant was written to the landlord with the request to renew the lease of the building for another period of ten years from 1-1-1980 however by letter dated 4-71980, the landlord refused the request for renewal of the lease and on 19-1-1982, a legal notice under S. 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was sent by the landlord to the applicant terminating his tenancy and in May, 1982 on failure of the applicant to vacate the building the landlord filed the suit for eviction of the applicant. This revision arises from that suit. Though one of the grounds taken for eviction of the applicant from the building also was non-payment of rent by the applicant but that ground did not find favour with the trial court; hence no reference in that regard will be made in this judgment.
(3.) APPLICANT opposed the sui on the plea, inter alia, that since the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm, hence the suit was barred by S. 69 of the Partnership Act. It was also pleaded that since the suit involved complicated question of law, therefore, it was not triable by Small Cause Court, it was pleaded that the plaint was liable to be returned to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded by the applicant that the lease of the building subsisted for another period of ten years after the applicant had become lessee under the provisions of the ESSO Acquisition Act. APPLICANT placed reliance on the provisions of Ss. 5 and 7 of the ESSO Acquisition Act to contend that the option for renewal of the lease was rightly exercised which was illegally turned down by the lessor. The trial court turned down objections raised against the maintainability of the suit taken by the applicant and decreed the suit. It was held that the right of renewal of the lease was not exercised properly. The tenancy was rightly terminated by notice sent by the respondent. Hence the applicant was liable to be evicted.;