BATA INDIA LIMITED KOLKATA Vs. P SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri M.R. Harsha, the counsel representing the unsuccessful appellant-defendant M/s. Bata India Limited had raised the following substantial questions of law in the present second appeal:

(2.) Sri M.R. Harsha, the learned counsel representing the appellant after pointing out the above substantial questions of law, had taken the court through the findings recorded by both the courts below and would contend that in view of clause No.2 at page No.13 of Ex.A-1, when the option was exercised by the appellant-defendant-tenant in time, the landlord is bound to accept and to grant a renewal for a further period of five years. In this view of the matter, the suit itself is premature. The counsel also would submit that both the courts had erred in decreeing the suit for eviction, having observed that the option to have renewal was exercised in accordance with law as per the aforesaid clause.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri N. Siva Reddy, the counsel representing the legal representatives of deceased-respondent- plaintiff Sri P. Satyanarayana made the following submissions: The learned counsel would contend that both the courts after appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and also Exs.A-1 to A-8 had recorded concurrent findings that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of eviction, but, however, the relief of perpetual injunction had been dismissed. The counsel also would maintain that the relief of perpetual injunction was prayed for restraining the defendant from making any holes etc., to the walls of the plaint schedule property. The learned counsel also submitted that it is no doubt true that there is a renewal clause. But, however, the learned counsel had drawn the attention of this court that even if the appellant-defendant is entitled to the relief of renewal for further period of five years, it had lapsed long back and hence on the ground that the suit had been instituted even before the expiry of the period, in the light of the subsequent event, there is no necessity of driving the legal representatives of the original landlord to yet another litigation in this regard. The counsel pointed out the findings recorded in O.S.No.473 of 1997 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kakinada and in A.S.No.37 of 2000 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.