ARUN MAINI Vs. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Verma, advocate, for the appellant and Sri S. P. Gupta, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, advocate for the contesting defendant/respondent- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).

(2.) This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.11.2004, passed by Special Judge/Additional District Judge. Gautam Budh Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1993, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1993, passed by the 1st Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad in Original Suit No. 862 of 1988, Arun Maini v. New Okhla Development Authority. An injunction suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant in respect of a Gas Godown situated in Sector 16A NOIDA, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, Ghaziabad. Both the courts below refused to grant the relief of injunction in favour of the appellant. When the appeal was presented as many as 7 substantial questions of law were formulated but during the course of argument, all those substantial questions of law formulated and submitted with the memo of appeal was given up. Subsequently four questions of law were framed, on which the appellant desired to advance argument. The four substantial questions of law formulated subsequently are as under :

(3.) The facts giving rise to the dispute are that the land situated in Sector 16A, Gautam Budh Nagar having an area 720 Sq. meters was given on lease for a fixed period of five years. The lease rent fixed was Rs. 720 per year. Subsequently the defendant-respondent asked the plaintiff to vacate the godown in question as the period of five years have lapsed. The suit was instituted by the appellant claiming injunction on the ground that since the lease rent in the year 1988 was preferred to NOIDA by cheque No. 355/81 dated 31.5.1988, drawn from Punjab and Sindh Bank, NOIDA along with letter dated 1.6.1988 but the said cheque was returned. It was also pleaded that since the tenancy has not been terminated by means of valid notice as such the plaintiff cannot be evicted otherwise than in accordance with law. The contesting respondent filed his written statement and the trial court dismissed the suit holding that since the lease was for a fixed period and it expired by efflux of time as such there was no question of determining the tenancy by means of valid notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, vide judgment dated 11.11.1993. A regular appeal was filed by the appellant, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1993, which has also been dismissed and has given rise to the instant appeal.