MANJIT KAUR Vs. DHAN PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this revision, the defendant/tenant has challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 5.4.2014, adjudicating the SCC Suit No. 36/2010, whereby the learned District Judge has decreed the suit and has directed the tenant to handover the vacant, actual, physical possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff. Further, the tenant has also been directed to pay the charges for unauthorized use and occupation @ Rs. 200/ - per day from 16 -6 -2010 till the date of actual handing over of possession along with Rs. 1,000/ - as cost of notice. The admitted facts between the parties are that Sardarni Manjit Kaur entered into a lease deed with the landlord Dhan Prakash on 31.3.1998 and the lease commenced w.e.f. 1.4.1998. Tenanted property is a shop situated in the Kurli Market, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. As per the covenant No. 2 of the deed, it was settled that the Lessee shall pay the lease rent in the following manner to the Lessor;

(2.) THE tenant, thus, continued her tenancy with the consent of the landlord as per the covenants in the deed up to March 2010. But as per the term, when the advance payment of Rs. 10,000/ - for the coming financial year was offered, the landlord refused to receive such advance and instead issued a notice dated 28.3.2010 terminating the tenancy of the revisionist. That notice was duly replied by the tenant on 15.6.2010. When the shop, in question, was not vacated by the tenant, a suit No. 36/2010 was presented by the landlord in August 2010, which was decreed by the impugned judgment, as has been stated above.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned Counsel of the revisionist that the lease, in question, was in perpetuity as there was no stipulation giving the liberty to the Lessor to terminate the lease. Rather, the liberty was conferred to the Lessee only to determine the lease by way of giving one month's prior notice, but this liberty was not conferred to the landlord by any one of the stipulations contained in the deed, in question. So, such a perpetual lease could not have been terminated by way of giving the notice dated 28.3.2010.