BATA INDIA LTD Vs. KESHAR PRASAD MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TITLE (Eviction) Suit No. 3 of 1996 was filed under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were respectively father and son. Eviction of defendants from shop premises, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint was sought on the grounds of expiry of fixed term lease (Ext. 1) and personal necessity. The suit was decreed by impugned judgment/order dated 24.12.1999. It was held that defendants failed to exercise option for renewal within stipulated time and Plaintiffs have reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit shop. It was found that no suitable vacant site was available to the plaintiffs to start the proposed business and they have choice to select most suitable premises. Partial eviction could not have fulfilled plaintiffs' need. Defendants have, therefore, filed the present Revision application under Section 14 (8) of the Act.

(2.) MR . Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, Senior Counsel for the petitioners put stress upon the following renewal clause 'That after expiry of the lease of 15 (Fifteen) years, there will be a fresh lease at a rent to be mutually settled' and submitted that defendants continued in possession after expiry of period of lease deed, Ext. 1, in part performance of contract and the plaintiffs were to take steps for renewal of the lease. The aforesaid renewal clause was not optional, rather it was mandatory. It was further submitted that plaintiffs' claim of allotment of the suit shop exclusively to plaintiff No. 2 by virtue of a sada document dated 9.2.1993, Ext. 5 was not tenable.

(3.) DEFENDANTS claimed to have sent a notice on 20.6.1994 by ordinary post in exercise of their option for renewal of the lease. On 10.1.1996, they sent a registered letter enclosing a copy of the alleged notice dated 20.6.1994. The said registered letter was returned to them without delivery. Further on 29.1.1996, they sent a letter under Certificate of Posting enclosing copy of letter dated 10.1.1996. Defendants failed to prove that in fact, a notice was sent to the plaintiffs expressing their desire for renewal of the lease before expiry of stipulated period in lease, Ext. 1. On the other hand, plaintiffs sent a notice dated 11.7.1995, Ext. 2 and informed the defendants that they would not renew the leasehold premises any more and asked them to vacate the same on expiry of period of lease. In my view, the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that the defendant neither took any step for renewal of lease nor approached the Court under the provisions of the Act.