SNEH VASIH Vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Sneh Vaish and another have filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of rent and mesne profits against M/s Filatex India Ltd. (hereinafter described as the respondent). The sum and substance of the pleadings which give rise to the filing of the said suit is that on 1.10.1993, the suit premises were let to the defendant/respondent for three years. Lease expired on 30/09/1996. Thereafter no fresh lease was executed. But defendants started paying 20% increased rent. Thereafter the plaintiffs vide a notice of 25/10/1999 had terminated the contractual lease with effect from 30th November, 1999. Since the premises as such had not been vacated the suit as such referred to above has been filed.

(2.) In the written statement the defendant had contested the suit. Defendant's plea is that he is in legal possession of the suit premises in part performance of the agreement which is containing in the registered lease deed of 21/10/1993 executed between the parties which was provided and agreed between the parties that defendant shall have the right to renew the lease deed on the expiry of each term of the lease and in case the defendant so opts to renew the lease then rent would be increased by 20%. It was also provided in clause 4(b) of the lease agreement that plaintiffs will not, at any time object to the renewal of the lease of the demised premises and that option to renew the lease is inexhaustible. Plaintiffs cannot determine the lease till the rent at the increased rate of 20% for successive term is paid. In pursuance of clause 4(b) of the lease deed when first three years were to expire defendant vide registered letter of 25/06/1996 gave a notice to the plaintiff that they are opting for renewal of lease deed for another three years and that they shall be paying the increased rent by 20% from 1/10/1996. Plaintiffs were further informed that defendants are willing to bear the cost of registration of the lease. The defendant had finally on 2/09/1996 informed the plaintiffs that they will be renewing the lease from 1/10/1996. The rent was paid after increasing the earlier rent by 20% and plaintiffs were informed that they should encash the cheque only if they were willing to fulfil their part of the obligation. The said cheques were encashed. The plaintiffs verbally conveyed to the defendant that they shall be sending the final lease deed. The defendant continued to be in possession in part performance of the contract. The defendant again vide letter of 5/07/1999 informed the plaintiff of their intention to renew lease deed from 1/10/1999 and that the defendant shall be paying 20% increased rent. The defendant had conveyed the intention to the plaintiffs for renewal of the lease and had sent the cheque accordingly with the increased rent. On receipt of the cheque the plaintiffs for the first time informed that they were not agreeable for renewal of the lease agreement. The plaintiff had sent a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant from 30th November, 1999. The plaintiffs are stated to be with a mala fide intention claiming possession to coerce the defendant to increase the rent. The defendant filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The said suit is stated to be pending.

(3.) The plaintiffs preferred an application under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure (IA 9622/2000) asserting that it is an admitted case of the parties that after 30/09/1996 when the lease came to an end with efflux of time no new lease deed was executed or registered as required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The contractual tenancy of the defendant had been terminated vide a valid notice and since there is no other registered deed that was executed the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession on basis of the admitted facts.