SHIVA CHANDRA PRASAD SHAW Vs. RAMESH KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal arises out of a decree of reversal. The plaintiff's suit was for eviction of the defendant from the suit property, founded upon two grounds, namely, (i) determination of lease by notice under Sec. 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.P. Act') and (ii) determination of the lease by efflux of time as envisaged under clause (a) of Sec. 111 of the T.P. Act. According to the plaintiff, the purpose of the lease was to carry on miscellaneous business (Vividh Vyawsaya). It was a lease for a fixed period of five years and the tenancy was made effective from 15th of November, 1973. The lease of the premises admittedly was created through two registered documents, one termed as 'Patta' signed by the plaintiff -the lessor alone, marked ext. 2 and the other namely 'Kdbuliat' executed by the defendant alone, marked Ext. 4. According to both the documents, the tenancy was to be effective from 15.11.1973 and was to expire on 14.4.1973 (sic). It is thus, obvious that tenancy was intended to expire by efflux of time limited thereby in the two Deeds. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the lease was sought to be terminated by service of notice (marked exts. E. and E/1) which mentioned, though wrongly, the date of commencement of the lease as 9.11.1973, the date of the execution of the two documents.

(2.) The suit was contested on different grounds and one of the pleas was regarding the validity of the two notices by reference to the purpose of tenancy, i.e. whether the lease was for manufacturing purpose or other than that.

(3.) The trial court took the view that the tenancy being for a fixed term lease, is got determined under Sec. 111 of the T.P. Act which is by efflux of time. The Court therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit reading the two aforesaid exhibits -the Patta and the Kabuliat (Exts. 2 and 4 respectively) as substantially complying the requirements of law giving rise to a validly created lease. The trial court therefore, ignored the validity of the two notices determining the lease of the suit premises. The defendant was treated as trespasser from 15.11.1978 and granted the decree for eviction and also for damages.