CHANNABASAPPA GURAPPA BELAGAVI Vs. LAXMTOAS BAPUDAS DARBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, in this petition, are the landlords and were the petitioners before the trial court. The respondents, in this petition, are the tenants and were the respondents before the trial court. The parties to this petition, in the course of this Order, will be referred to as "the landlords" and "the tenants".

(2.) FACTS that may have bearing for the disposal of this petition, may briefly be stated as hereunder:

(3.) SRI kumar, learned counsel appearing for the landlords, challenging the order under revision, made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the construction placed by the learned district judge on lease deed exhibit p. 19 holding that the lease is a permanent lease, is totally erroneous in law and the said finding has been recorded in total misunderstanding and misreading of the lease deed and also in disregard of the law on the subject. Elaborating this submission, Sri Kumar pointed out that the learned district judge has totally misunderstood the stipulation in the lease deed which provides for the renewal of the lease and also which provides that the lease deed is binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and legatees under the will of both the 'lessor' and the 'lessee' and also the stipulation, which only permits the lessee to surrender the leasehold premises. It is his submission that it is only in case of leases where the lease of the property is for an indefinite period; and a lessee is given the right to continue the leasehold property for an indefinite period, then only the lease could be considered as a permanent lease as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of sivayogeswara cotton press, Davangere and others v M. Panchaksharappa and another. According to the learned counsel, the lease deed in question is required to be considered as a term lease on proper construction as the lease is for a specific period of 99 years on payment of Rs. 325/- per year. According to him, the provision made for renewal of the lease will not make the lease a permanent lease. It is his submission that while construing the lease deed as to whether it is a permanent lease or a term lease, the court should normally take a view against construing the lease as the permanent lease, unless the terms in the lease deed, in unequivocal and unambiguous terms, require such interpretation to be placed; and when the lease deed provides for a specific period and even if an option is given to the lessees to renew the lease under the same terms and conditions, the lease can be renewed only once and after the renewal of the lease for one term, the lessees will not get any further right to get the lease renewed for any further period. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai dand v Purushottam ; the Division bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh high court in the case of syed jaleel Zone v P. Venkata Murlidhar ; the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs. (Dr.) P. S. Bedi v Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited ; and also in the case of Sewak Ram and others v Municipal Board, meerut. Therefore, the learned counsel pointed out that when the learned munsiff, on proper construction of the terms provided in the lease deed exhibit p. 19, had taken the view that the lease is a term lease, the learned district judge has committed a serious error in taking the contrary view and treating the lease as a permanent lease. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of sivayogeswara cotton press, supra and submitted that the lease deed in question which was under consideration before the Supreme Court in the said case, did not provide for any fixed period, and under those circumstances, the Supreme Court took the view that the lease in the said case was a permanent lease. Secondly, he submitted that even if it is a permanent lease, so long as it is a lease, in view of the Provisions contained in Section 21 of the act which nullifies the contract of lease entered into between the parties and provides a statutory right both to the landlords and tenants, the landlords are entitled to seek eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule premises. Therefore, he pointed out that even if the lease is held to be a permanent lease, the landlords are entitled to seek eviction of the tenants. He submitted that the principle laid down by the full bench decision of this court in the case of M/s. Bombay Tyres International Limited, Bombay and another v K. S. Prakash and another, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises Private Limited v Smt. Syeda Vajhiunnisa Begum and others, wherein the full bench of this court has taken the view that the Provisions of Section 21 of the act would operate notwithstanding the Provisions contained in the contract of lease, would apply in equal force even if the lease is permanent lease.