BURMAH SHELL OIL DISTRIBUTING NOW KNOWN AS BHARAT PETROLEUM COR PORATION LIMITED Vs. KHAJA MIDHAT NOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th Nov. 1987* of the High Court of Patna. On l6th Jan. 1958 a lease deed was executed between the lessee Latifur Rehman and lessor Khaja Midhat Noor (hereinafter called the respondent) with permission to sub-lease the same. The said Latifur Rehman sub-leased the premises to Burmah Shell Oil Distributing Company (the petitioner herein) for running a petrol pump and making necessary constructions thereon. The lease was for a period of ten years which expired on 16th Jan. 1968. It appears further that after the lease period had expired, the sub-lessee, petitioner continued to pay the rent which was being accepted continuously from month to month by the respondent, the lesser. A notice was issued by the respondent to the lessee terminating the lease and for giving vacant possession of the land by the 15th Jan. 1973 and also requiring the removal of the buildings, plant etc., by the 16th Jan. 1973. In the last two paras of the said notice, it was stated that the lessee was to surrender the lease-hold land on the expiry of 15th Jan. 1973. No notice was given separately to the petitioner terminating its lease. A suit for ejectment was filed thereafter. The lessee Latifur Rehman did not contest the suit for ejectment. The petitioner, however, contested that proceeding. The learned Munsiff I, Gaya, by his, judgment dated 8th May, 1979 dismissed the suit holding that the notice terminating the lease was necessary and the notice in this case was invalid. The plea of the landlord that the tenancy expired by efflux of time was rejected. On 22nd February, 1983 the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Gaya allowed the appeal of the landlord and held that the notice terminating the tenancy and asking the petitioner to surrender by the 15th Jan. 1973 was a valid notice.

(2.) The main question involved is, whether there was a valid termination of the lease and as such the sub-lessee, the petitioner herein was bound to deliver vacant possession. A written statement had been filed by the petitioner, the sub-lessee, wherein it was, inter alia stated that it was holding over the lease hold property after the expiry of the lease by paying rent. No notice terminating tenancy was received by it. The validity of the notice to the lessee was also challenged. The trial Court held that the lease was not extended for a fixed period of five years in absence of any written instrument.

(3.) The following two questions of law were reformulated by the High Court:-