PRINCE RUBBER Vs. REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant who is holding the lease hold premises as a lessee under term lease before expiry of the period of lease when there is no provision for forfeiture of lease in the lease deed In order to determine this question it is necessary to notice in brief the facts of this case.

(2.) The property in dispute is Plot No. 3, Sector 6, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad. Defendant, Remington Rand of India Limited took the factory building on the northern portion of Plot No. 5, Sector 6, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, from the plaintiff on lease for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 1.9. 1974 at the "rate of Rs. 26,200/- per month on the terms and conditions mentioned in the registered lease deed dated 7.9.1974. Plaintiff filed suit for possession of the tenanted premises by way of ejectment of the respondent and for recovery of Rs. 5,79,362/- towards arrears of rent and damages/compensation for use and occupation of the premises, with future interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum. In his plaint plaintiff contended that the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, are not applicable to the premises in question as the building on rent with the defendant was completed in August, 1974, i.e. within 10 years. Plaintiff averred that lease of the defendant was terminated by sending legal notice dated 8/9.7.1983 under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. Plaintiff further averred that w e.f. 1.8.1983, occupation of the defendant in the premises is of a trespasser and he has no right to continue in possession of the premises in question. Plaintiff also averred that defendant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.1982 upto 30.4.1983 less the part payment made towards rent for that period. On these allegations, plaintiff prayed that suit for ejectment and payment of damages/ compensation for use and occupation of the premises may be decreed.

(3.) Upon notice of the suit, defendant submitted that at the time of inception of tenancy, it paid Rs. 14 lacs, without interest to the plaintiff which was to be adjusted towards rent payable for the premises. Defendant submitted that amount of Rs. 14 lacs has been fully adjusted and now the plaintiff wants to increase the rent. Defendant further contended that the premises in question were taken on lease from 1.9.1974 for a period of 10 years vide registered lease- deed and the same expired on 31.8.1984, whereafter it exercised its option for renewal of lease for another period of 5 years by giving a notice to the plaintiff, Defendant submitted that notice terminating the tenancy is illegal and void as the lease was for manufacturing purposes and at least six months notice was required to terminate the lease. Defendant further averred that plaintiff has waived the notice as the plaintiff has been receiving rent through cheque from August, 1983 to June, 1984 The jurisdiction of the civil court was questioned by saying that since lease was for a period of ten years. Civil Suit before that period was not maintainable. In regard to arrears of rent, defendant submitted that rent for the period from 1.8.1982 to 30.4.1983 was paid but a sum of Rs. 29,662/- was deducted there from because the said amount was spent by defendant on repairs carried out on the building which had been damaged due to the factors beyond the control of the defendant. Defendant submitted that it is not liable to pay damages/compensation for use and occupation of the premises. Trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed material issue.