BALJIT KAUR Vs. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for judgment under Order 12 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code has been filed in suit for ejectment, declaration, mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction and recovery of mesne profits. The applicant claims that defendant No. I has admitted all factual averments in the plaint, which is disputed by the said defendant.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit premises were demised to defendant No. I under the lease deed dated 24 February, 1988 for a period of three years; the tenancy expired on 24 February, 1991 by efflux of time and again on 24 February, 1994, whereafter it became a tenancy from month to month; the last agreed rental was Rs. 43,063.00 p.m.: the said defendant defaulted in paying rent from July, 1995 till fuly, 1996; there was a fire in the building in another portion in June, 1995, resultant whereto defendant No. 2, the Chief Fire Officer sealed the building and required installation of fire fighting- equipment; the plaintiff was willing to do so; but defendant No. 1 did not remove the locks and that she was not interested in having defendant No. 1 as her tenant; served a notice of eviction on 2 July, 1996 whereby the monthly tenancy of defendant No. 1 was terminated and thereafter the said defendant having failed to vacate the premises, she filed the present suit.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 admits letting out of the premises for three years but with an option clause, in exercise of which the tenancy was extended twice; first on 24 February, 1991 and then mutually on 24 February, 1994 so as to last till 24 February, 1997. It is stated that the initial rent was Rs. 32>562.00 per month, which was enhanced in terms of the option clause to Rs. 37,446 .00 p .m. after three years of initial tenancy and thereafter to Rs. 43,063.00 p.m. w.e.f. 24 February, 1994. According to the said defendant the tenancy was continuing one and not monthly; the tenancy having been mutually extended, it was for the plaintiff to have the lease deed for the extended period executed and registered, which she did not do and claims that the plaintiff continued accepting rent for the extended period at the enhanced rate of Rs. 43,063.00 p.m. and therefore, the eviction noticedated 2 July, 1996was bad and of no consequence, and the suit for ejectment is not maintainable as its possession is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.