SEWAK RAM Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs first appeal arising out of a suit to eject the defendant, the Municipal Board of Meerut, from a market styled "Qaiserganj market" and to recover a sum of Rs. 6,091, on account of mesne profits together with profits and interest. The facts which have given rise to this suit can briefly be stated as follows : On 12 March 1887, one Pt. Ganga Ram, a brother of the plaintiff's father, granted a lease to the Municipal Board of Meerut, for a period of 21 years in respect of the properties specified in the plaint. Under the terms of the lease, the lessee was allowed 20% on gross-rental realized by him. The lease further had a covenant for its renewal for a further period of 21 years. On 23 September 1895, Pt. Ganga Ram died and one Mt. Sundar Kunwar, his widow succeeded to his estate as a Hindu female. On 16 May 1908, Mt. Sundar Kunwar executed a fresh lease under the terms of which the lessee was to get 25% of the gross-rental instead of 20%. This lease also contained a covenent for its renewal for a further term of 21 years. In 1912 Mt. Sundar Kunwar died. The plaintiff is one of the rever. sion ers of Ganga Ram and under a partition-decree in a suit for partition between him and other reversioners of Ganga Ram he got 3/10 share in the estate of Ganga Ram and further became the owner of 1/15 share more by purchase. The period of the lease executed by Mt. Sundar Kun. war on 15 May 1908 terminated on 31 March 1929.

(2.) The plaintiff alleges that the defendant was anxious to obtain a renewal of the lease created by Mt. Sundar Kunwar, but he did not agree to the terms. He gave a notice to the defendant, the Municipal Board of Meerut, to give up possession over the premises leased; but the defendant failed to comply with his demand. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit against the defendant for ejectment and for mesne profits. He alleged that the defendant had no right to claim the renewal of the lease and that further the covenant for renewal of the lease by Mt. Sunder Kunwar, who was in possession of the estate of Ganga Ram as a Hindu widow, was not binding upon the reversioners. The claim was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was, not entitled to eject the defendant. It was also asserted that the plaintiff and other reversioners not having raised any objection to the renewal of the lease by Mt. Sunder Kunwar, in 1908, were estopped from objecting to the terms of the lease. Defendants case was that the covenant in the lease created by Mt. Sundar Kunwar, entitling the defendant to renew the lease for another term of 21 years, was binding on the plaintiff and other reversioners of Ganga Earn. The correctness of the amount claimed by the plaintiff as damages was also challenged.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the case came to the conclusion that under the terms of the lease, which Ganga Ram had executed, the defendants were entitled to claim a right of a renewal perpetually and therefore the plaintiff could not eject them. The plea of estoppel raised by the defendants was not accepted by the Court below. The amount of mesne profits was left undetermined. The defendant had also asserted that they had acquired a permanent right and were entitled to get a renewal of the lease according to the terms of the lease created in 1887 and 1908. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the defendants, under the terms of the lease executed by Ganga Ram, could always claim a right to the renewal of the lease whenever the period of lease expired. The plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court, against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. The lease executed by Ganga Ram, on 12 March 1887, is printed at pp. 49, 50 and 51. The decision of the case before us depends to a very great extent on the interpretation of the terms of this lease. A perusal of it shows that the lease was created for a period of 21 years commencing from the date of its registration. The lessee was to realize the rent of the said premises and to pay the same up six monthly to the lessor, Pt. Ganga Ram, after a deduction of 20 per cent. The important covenant over which the parties are at variance before us is contained in Clause 8 of the lease which runs as follows: That the said Municipal Board shall be entitled on the expiration of the term of this agreement to renew it on the same conditions for 21 years or for such further period as the said Board may deem expedient, not being more than 21 years.