BANK OF BARODA Vs. SARDAR ARVINDER SING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist which was suit No. 3 of 1998. The suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent as been decreed by judgment dated 31-5-2001 by Additional District Judge, Hapur (Ghaziabad). Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) The only point pressed before me by Sri Avinash Swaroop, learned counsel for the revisionist is that the tenancy was for a fixed period that the notice of termination of tenancy was served and the suit has been filed before the expiry of the said period; that, therefore, the notice of termination of tenancy is illegal and the suit is premature.

(3.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. A registered lease deed was executed between the parties on 20- 12-1983, which is annexure No. 1 to the affidavit. However, it is also not denied that the tenancy in fact started from 10-1-1983 though this registered deed was executed on 20- 12-1983. According to the agreement the premises was given on rent for a period of ten years. There is a clause 5 in the lease deed, interpretation of which is involved in this revision and therefore, the same is abstracted as below: