SURJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code raises a short but important question. The question raised may be formulated as follows:

(2.) . The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are succinctly set out. The petitioner leased out her premises bearing No. 34, New Market, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi to respondent No. 1 - Union of India for use as a Post Office by its Postal Service Department under a lease agreement dated 29.6.1982, bearing Rs. 2,000.00 per month as rent, for a period of five years. The lease deed was duly registered with theOffice of the Sub Registrar. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are officers of Postal Department. The lease period ended on 1.6.1987 by efflux of time. No further lease deed was executed in respect of the premises between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner. But the respondent continued to pay rent of the premises at contractual rate. The petitioner served a notice dated 18.4.1995 purported to be under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure terminating the lease and demanding damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 7,000.00 per month from 1.6.1987 to 31.5.1992 and Rs. 12,000.00 per month for the period from 1.6.1992 to 31.5.1995. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the suit premises and also for recovery of Rs. 3,72,200.00 @ Rs. 12,000.00 per month as damages for use and occupation for the last 3 years.

(3.) . The case of the petitioner in the plaint is that the contractual lease has been determined by efflux of time stipulated in the registered lease deed. The lease agreement was in writing and was executed by the respondent No. 1 on 29.6.1982 and after the expiry of the lease period on 1.6.1987 it has not been renewed. The Union of India has no right, title and interest to remain in occupation of the premises. In terms of Article 299 of the Constitution of India it was mandatory to have a registered lease agreement at the commencement of the lease which was complied with. After the expiry of five years, the lease stood automatically terminated. There being no lease deed required by Article 299, after the expiry of first five years the respondents is in unauthorised occupation of the premises. Though the lease stood terminately by efflux of time yet the petitioner served a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure dated 18.4.1995 terminating the lease agreement with effect from 1.7.1995, or by the end of lease month which the respondent deemed to be the lease month. Other averments are not relevant for consideration of the present controversy so they need to be stated here.