D.N.UPADHYAY,J. - (1.) This Civil Revision has been directed against the judgment dated 20.01.2011 passed by learned Second Additional Munsif at Ranchi and decree signed on 04.02.2011 in connection with Eviction Title Suit No. 01/2007 whereby the petitioner/defendant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of judgment.
(2.) The plaintiff has brought a suit against the petitioner for evicting him from the suit premises wholly and particularly described in the schedule annexed at the foot of the plaint and further after evicting the petitioner for putting the plaintiff/opposite party in Khas possession over the same. It is disclosed that one shop premises with fittings over Holding No. 515/C-1 in Ward No. III, Khata No.1786 situated at main road within (Ranchi-Chaibasa Road) near Pee Pee Compound, P.S. Hindpiri, District- Ranchi butted and bounded on the north and south by other shops and on the east open space and Main Road and on the west within 4' wide passage was given to the petitioner on rent for five years from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.2001 with option to the lessee/petitioner to renew the same for another five years. The aforesaid lease was renewed vide registered deed of lease dated 12.2.2002 for a fixed period of five years commencing from 1.1.2002 and ending on 31.12.2006 on monthly rent of Rs. 3168/-. In the fresh lease there was no provision for further renewal. A sum of Rs. 28,000/- as security to ensure due performance of the terms and obligations by the petitioner/defendant was also deposited with the plaintiff/opposite party and the amount was returnable without interest on the occasion of handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises. After expiry of period of lease the opposite party, through his lawyer issued a notice against the petitioner on 18.12.2006 asking him to vacate the suit premises after 31.12.2006. Since the petitioner failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises after expiry of the period of lease, Eviction Title Suit No. 01/2007 was filed on 4.1.2007 as the cause of action arose on and from 31.12.2006 when the suit premises was not vacated and on subsequent dates. For the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction the suit was valued at Rs. 31016/- and ad valorem court-fee was also deposited.
(3.) The petitioner/defendant after publication of the notice in local newspaper appeared in the court-below and filed an application for grant of leave to contest the suit and subsequent to grant of leave to contest the suit, written statement was filed. The petitioner has made out a case that the suit in its present form is not maintainable and barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. It was also pleaded that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata. Further plea of the petitioner was that no cause of action ever arose. He has been carrying on business in the suit premises continuously for more than decades as a tenant and after every five years lease deed used to be executed and registered on agreed enhanced rent whereas other terms and conditions of every lease always remain same. On the expiry of the period of lease which was for the period 1.1.97 to 31.1.2001 another lease for further period of five years was executed on enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 3168/- for which a sum of Rs. 2561/- was paid by the petitioner as a cost for execution and registration of renewed lease from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2006 and that was registered on 12.2.2002. It is contended that the petitioner was not given opportunity to go through the content of lease deed dated 12.2.2002 and he was under impression that the renewal clause as usual must be there but after knowing the institution of suit he could learn that the opposite party has practiced fraud by deleting the renewal clause from the lease executed on 12.2.2002. The petitioner in his written statement has further contended that he had been paying rent regularly by cheque on month to month basis or for several months at a time. The rent for the month of June to August, 2006 was paid by a single cheque bearing no. 726200 dated 22.06.2006 for Rs.9405/- only. Similarly the rent for the month of September to November, 2006 was collected from the petitioner by the opposite party on 30.09.2006 through Account Payee cheque no. 529773. The period of lease was to be expired on 31.12.2006, therefore, the petitioner asked the opposite party to renew the lease for further period of five years commencing from 1.1.2007 and on such request the opposite party disclosed that no renewal clause is there in that very deed. To know such fact, the petitioner surprised and asked the opposite party to supply the copy of the deed. On such demand, the opposite party supplied photo copy of lease deed. After perusing the same, the petitioner raised issue of fraud with the plaintiff and communicated him to take appropriate legal action. Thereafter, the opposite party/plaintiff to pacify the petitioner said that there is no need to worry and his tenancy would not be disturbed. At the request of plaintiff/opposite party the petitioner deposited rent for the month of January and February, 2007 in advance along with the rent of December, 2006 and a sum of Rs. 9504/- through Account Payee cheque bearing no. 531898 dated 30.11.2006 drawn in favour of the plaintiff was given to him. The plaintiff further received rent for the month of March, 2007 through another Account Payee cheque bearing no. 508268 for a sum of Rs. 3168/-. The case of the petitioner is that after receiving rent for the month of December, 06 to March, 2007 the plaintiff/opposite party mala fidely did not issue receipt whereafter the matter was brought to the notice of competent authority. In spite of specific direction, the plaintiffopposite party has not issued rent receipt for the month of December, 2006 to March, 2007. The petitioner has also filed Complaint Case bearing no. 472 of 2007 against the plaintiff and his son for the criminal acts. Further plea of the petitioner is that on the assurance to continue the tenancy, on demand made by the plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant had paid rent for the month from December, 2006 to March, 2007 and therefore, the petitioner has become month to month tenant by holding over. The petitioner has specifically denied the content of the plaint para wise in the written statement filed by him. The petitioner has denied that no notice was ever served upon him through lawyer of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that there was no ground available to the plaintiff for asking the petitioner/defendant to vacate the suit premises after expiry of period of lease because he has become month to month tenant by holding over and he cannot be evicted on the concocted plea of expiry of period of lease. The learned Munsif after considering the pleadings of both the parties framed the following issues:- Issue No.1- Whether the suit as framed is maintainable ? Issue No.2- Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit ? Issue No.3- Whether the defendant was tenant under the plaintiff for a fixed terms or lease Or whether a tenancy by holding over has been created ? Issue No.4- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit property after expiry of lease deed dated 12.02.2002 ? Issue No.5- Whether after expiry of lease plaintiff is entitled to forfeit the security deposit of Rs. 28,000/- deposited by the defendant ? And Issue No.6- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief as claimed ?;