MANOHAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. This Court vide order dated 15-4-1996 while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law :--

(2.) The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 4-1-1995 inter alia held that by mere deposit of rent, the lease is not renewed. It was further held that no particulars of the payment of rent were mentioned by the defendant and there is no specific pleading with regard to deposit of the amount of rent as well as the period for which the rent has been deposited. It was found by the trial Court that though on 31-3-1986, 28-4-1986 and 8-8-1986, a sum of Rs. 7000/-, Rs. 7420/- and Rs. 9100/- was withdrawn by the plaintiff yet by mere withdrawal of the amount of rent, the lease is not renewed. The trial Court also held that the lease of the defendant in respect of the accommodation in question has been determined. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The defendant challenged the validity of the aforesaid decree in an appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 3-5-1995 allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court held that since the plaintiff had withdrawn the amount of rent which was deposited after determination of the lease, therefore; the lease has been renewed and the plaintiff is not entitled to decree for possession.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Appellate Court grossly erred in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court. It was further submitted that the lower Appellate Court grossly erred in holding that new tenancy came into existence by merely acceptance of rent by the plaintiff. It was also urged that the lower Appellate Court grossly erred in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court when it was not proved that acceptance of rent by the plaintiff was for a period after the tenancy was terminated. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in Balwant Rai Agrawal vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, 2010 2 MPLJ 436and a decision of Supreme Court in Shanti Prasad Devi and another vs. Shankar Mahto and others, 2005 2 MPJR 263.