R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 29.11.2006 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 17 of 2004 by learned Subordinate Judge -I, Dmmka decreeing the suit filed by the opposite party against the petitioner.
(2.) MR . Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the petitioners -defendants -tenants submitted that in view of Clause 7 of the lease deed the opposite party -plaintiff -landlord was bound to renew the lease, though on mutual terms, and therefore, expiry of period of tenancy could not be a ground to pass order of eviction against the petitioners. He further submitted that the requirement of the opposite party was not bona fide and in any event any such requirement could be substantially satisfied by evicting the petitioner from a part of the suit premises and allowing it to continue occupation of the part of the premises. This Title (Eviction) Suit was instituted by the opposite party -landlord, against the petitioners -tenants, under the provisions of Section 11 (1)(c) i.e. on the grounds of personal requirement of the landlord and (e) on the ground of expiry of period of tenancy.
(3.) ACCORDING to the landlord a notice dated 13.9.2004 was given to the tenant, after expiry of the period of lease to vacate the suit premises on the ground that the period of lease had expired and he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. According to the tenants, a reply dated 5.10.2004 was sent to the said notice, saying, inter alia, that as per Clause 7 of the lease deed, the tenants are legally entitled to continue in possession of the suit premises and the landlord is bound to execute a fresh lease with fresh terms and conditions. Similar stands were taken by the parties in the suit.;