ABOOBACKER KEYI Vs. GOVINDAN SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by the plaintiff arise out of a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. S. A. No. 595/85 is against the judgment in AS. No. 59/83 and S. A. No. 595/85 is against the judgment in A. S. No. 60/83. The suit is for recovery of possession of the plaint property, which was leased out to the defendant for a period of 10 years with effect from 1-11-1970. This is evidenced by a lease deed executed on 13-11-1970 (Ext. A1 ). The land was demised on lease to the defendant for the construction of a petrol bunk. According to the terms of the lease the defendant was liable to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- for the first five years and Rs. 400/- for the next five years. There is also a covenant providing an option to the tenant to renew the lease for a further term on the expiry of the lease, on terms to be agreed upon at that time. The term expired on 1-11-80. According to the plaintiff, if the defendant wanted to renew the lease, he should have exercised the option on the expiry of the lease on 1-11-1980. He did not exercise the option and accordingly the defendant is not entitled to continue in possession of the property. Accordingly the plaintiff issued a registered notice dated 17-11-1980 stating that the term had expired, that there was no request for renewal and that the plaintiff is not willing to continue the lease arrangement and demanded surrender of possession by the defendant. The defendant did not surrender and accordingly the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery on 29-11-1980 on the above allegations.

(2.) THE defendant filed a written statement in which it was contended that even before the expiry of the lease the defendant had intimated the plaintiff orally his desire to renew the lease and that he was prepared to execute a renewed lease deed. But as the plaintiff and the defendant were on cordial terms, the plaintiff represented that considering the friendly relationship there need not be a formal document and that a fresh lease can be executed at any convenient time. Accordingly the defendant continued as a lessee. He also contended that he was in possession of the land even before ext. A1, that he reclaimed the land and has constructed buildings thereon for the purpose of a petrol bunk and that he is entitled to the protection under s. 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was further contended that he had effected substantial improvements in the property and that the suit without offering the value of improvements is not maintainable in law.

(3.) BEFORE this Court counsel for the appellant-plaintiff challenged the finding of the lower appellate court that the defendant-tenant exercised the option for renewal before the expiry of the lease. He also contended that even if he had exercised the option that is not sufficient to give him title to continue in possession and prevent the landlord from evicting him after the term is over, unless the parties executed a renewed lease deed agreeing the terms of such a lease. It was also contended by him that at any rate the provision for renewal contained in Ext. A1 is so vague and ambiguous that it is void under S. 29 of the Contract Act. Counsel for the respondent-defendant while refuting these contentions also supported the decree of the courts below on the ground that the defendant is entitled to the protection under S. 106 of the Land Reforms Act, and contended that the suit is not maintainable without offering the value of improvements which the plaintiff had conceded before the appellate court. I shall consider these contentions one by one.