Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the State Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) THE prayer in the instant writ petition is for renewal of lease in respect of a land situated in Khasmahal Plot No. 133, M.S. Plot No. 149, Khata No. 135 in Mouza Lalpur, Thana No. 197 in respect of which a lease was granted originally in favour of father of the Petitioner. The original lease deed was executed on 17th March, 1947 for a period of 30 years. Before the lease expired, the Petitioner applied for its renewal which was once again renewed for a period of 30 years. The second lease deed also contains a renewal clause which states that the renewal for a period of 30 years can again be done subject to enhancement of rent to an extent of maximum double the rent which was being paid at the relevant time. It is submitted that the Petitioner applied on 21st August, 1995 for renewal of the lease. The proposal of renewal was accepted by the Government of Bihar at that time and was preferred to the State Government for acceptance. But subsequently the State of Jharkhand came into existence and it is for this reason, the lease could not be renewed. The Petitioner again approached the Government and he has been asked to pay a Salami for renewal of the lease. Submission of the learned Counsel is that according to the terms and condition of the lease deed, the payment of Salami was never stipulated. On the contrary, the lease deed could be renewed on enhancement of rent to the extent of double the existing rent if the Petitioner was agreeable to accept it. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that the offer made by the Government has not been accepted and, therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any renewal whatsoever.
(3.) THE learned Counsel has place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. v. Lalji Tandon through its legal representative : (2004) 1 S.C.C. 1. The principle laid down in the said decision was that once the lease deed contains the renewal clause, the Government has no other option but to adhere to the said stipulation and renew the lease. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court was of the view that though there was no renewal clause, -2 even then the conduct of the parties clearly explain that there was stipulation regarding existence of renewal clause and the lessor had no hesitation for grant of renewal. In such a circumstance, the Apex Court held that the lessee was entitled to renewal. Submission is that the instant case stands on a better footing since there is a clearly written renewal clause in the subsequent lease deed. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the State Government is liable to decide the proposal for renewal in accordance with law and also principle laid down by the Apex Court in the citation mentioned aforesaid. The Petitioner shall make an application along with a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today and the State Government shall take into consideration and decide the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of such an application.;