S SURESH Vs. SYED OMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant and the third defendant, who was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased-second defendant in the suit, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. First respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of vacant possession of the suit site after ejecting the defendants therefrom. As the second defendant died during the pendency of the suit, her LRs were brought on record as defendants 3 and 4. The fourth defendant is arrayed as second respondent in this Second Appeal.

(2.) There is not much controversy about the facts of the case. The plaintiff, who is the owner of the suit site admeasuring 1555 sq. yds in Hayatnagar village, leased out the same to the first defendant under lease deed dated 10-12-1979 (marked as Ex. A-2) for a period of 10 years initially with an option for the lessee to renew the lease for a further period of 10 years by giving prior notice of not less than six months before the expiry of the lease period. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant sub-let the same to the second defendant, without his knowledge or consent. It is, however, the case of the defendants that the lease was obtained for and on behalf of a partnership firm, of which the defendants 1 and 2 were partners. Before the expiry of the lease period on 8-6-89, the second defendant gave Ex. A-3 notice to the plaintiff purporting to exercise the option of the renewal of lease for a further period of 10 years, to which the plaintiff sent a reply to the second defendant stating that the second defendant was a stranger with whom the plaintiff had no privity of contract, and as such, the second defendant had no right to exercise the option of renewal of the lease. After the expiry of the lease period, the plaintiff filed the suit against both the defendants, after issuing a quit notice dated 16-5-90 (Ex.A-6).

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff was fully aware that the lease was obtained for the purpose of running a petrol bunk in the suit site in the name and style of M/s. Sri Rama Service Station, a partnership concern, of which defendants 1 and 2 were partners, and that rents were, in fact, paid on behalf of the firm only throughout and the same were accepted without any murmur, and the second defendant, as partner of the firm, duly exercised the option for renewal of the lease for a further period of 10 years and, as such, the lease stood extended and renewed for a further period of 10 years beyond 10-12-89, and the suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.