UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RISHIKESH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT SCC revision has been filed against the judgment dated 15.2.2011 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court No.4, Deoria decreeing the suit for ejectment and for damages. Brief background of the case is that in the year 1988, an agreement to lease was entered between the plaintiff-respondent-landlord and the applicants-revisionist-tenant being United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for a initial period of three years w.e.f. 1.7.1988 for the demised premises for the monthly rent of Rs. 2300 P.M. alongwith the other terms and condition being arrived upon between the parties. On the expiry of the said lease agreement it was again renewed between the parties on the enhanced rent of 15% and subsequently also the renewal took place after every three years with enhancement of 15% rent, lastly the term for 3 years expires on 30.6.2006 and again it was renewed w.e.f. 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2009 at the agreed rent between the parties of Rs. 6332.00. Thereafter the plaintiffs- respondents have filed a SCC Suit before the SCC/ADJ, Deoria, being SCC No. 05 of 2007 on the ground of arrears of rent and ejectment. The applicant-revisionist filed its written statement and contested the said case both on merits as well as on law points and have specifically denied all the allegations being made in the plaint. Legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given on 21.4.2006 and thereafter the plaintiffs-respondents have filed a SCC Suit before the SCC/ADJ, Deoria, being SCC No. 05 of 2007 on the ground of arrears of rent and ejectment. Thereafter said suit has been decreed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Sri. Saurabh Srivastava, Advocate, learned Counsel for the? revisionist contended with vehemence that in the present case lease in question was subsisiting and as such suit in question could not have been decreed as has been done and as such revision deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submission, Sri Pramod Kumar Jain,

(2.) ADVOCATE, Senior ADVOCATE, assisted by Saurabh Jain, ADVOCATE contended that so called purported lease was not at all in existence and? there has been no renewal of lease for? further three years, and in the present case as there? has been no? registered lease deed, then tenancy at the best could be treated on? month to month basis and here valid notice has been given and validly tenancy has been terminated, in this background suit in question has been rightly decreed, as such no interference should be made. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that revisionist's precise case is, that after expiry of the period of lease, on enhance rent of 15% tenure of lease for three years had been extended upto 30.6.2009 at the rate of rent of Rs. 6332/- This is accepted position that there is nothing in black and white to show and substantiate that there is lease deed wherein tenancy period has been extended upto 30.6.2009 and once revisionist precise case has been that lease is for three years and said lease is unregistered lease, then in the absence of their being any registration, said lease has to be considered on? month to month basis. As per the? provision of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act that in the event of lease? period being? for more than one year, then it has to be through registered document. Once there is no? registered lease deed in question and as per the petitioner, it is oral lease deed and same not registered, then tenancy has to be treated on month to month basis and here valid notice has been given? terminating the tenancy and in this background suit has rightly been decreed in the present case and as such there is no occasion to interfere with the said order. Consequently, revision is dismissed. However,? six months time is accorded? to vacate the premises subject to? furnishing of? undertaking within one month before the Judge Small Causes Court and depositing of? entire decreetal amount within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In the event of failure, to comply with the aforementioned conditions, interim protection, so accorded shall come to an end.