SHIV SHANKER Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the writ petition, supplementary -affidavit, counter -affidavit in reply to the petition and supplementary -affidavit and the rejoinder -affidavit in reply thereto.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made three fold submissions : namely, first the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 114, Transfer of Property Act and no decree of eviction can be passed and to this extent. Judge Small Cause Court and Revisional Court under Provincial Small Cause Court Act have acted erroneously. Section 114, Transfer of Property Act reads :

(3.) SECOND submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenancy of the defendant -petitioner could not be determined or brought to an end in view of the relevant clauses contained in the agreement deed dated 1.8.1992/ Annexure -1 to the petitioner, inasmuch as, it contemplated a clause giving option to the tenant to review the lease after every three years.