NARENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. RAVI PRAKASH BAGROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision is preferred under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2010 passed by 2nd Additional Munsif, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 24 of 2003. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendant - revisionist was directed to handover vacant possession of the suit property within two months from the date of judgment, which is a shop situated within holding No. 515 CI, Ward No. 3, Main Road, Ranchi with dimensions 32' X 13'4" and with the height 20' and mezzanine floor with 11' height.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff according to the plaint, in brief, is that he is the landlord of the disputed premises and he inducted the Defendant as tenant for a fixed period of 5 (five) years commencing from 1st July 1998 and ending on 30th June 2003 by virtue of a registered deed of lease dated 17th November 1998. At the time of institution of suit the monthly rent of the premises paid by the Defendant was Rs. 2640/- payable by 10th day of every following calender month. In fact it is admitted case that the shop was given on lease to the Defendant since the year 1968 for a fixed period and renewal was allowed before expiry of the period of lease at an enhanced rate of 5%. However, the last renewal expired on 30th June 2003. The lease deed has been brought on record as Ext.3. The deed incorporated a renewal clause for enhancement of period of lease for another five years on a notice in writing to be given by the lessee atleast 6 months prior to the expiry of the lease and the rent was to be settled by mutual agreement. According to the assertion in the plaint the renewal clause was 'void ab-initio', since the terms and conditions of renewal were vague and the Defendant failed to exercise any option for renewal within the stipulated period, therefore, the Plaintiff by means of a notice dated 26.6.2003 informed the tenant that vacant possession of the disputed premises be handed over to the Plaintiff-landlord by 1st July 2003. On receipt of the aforesaid notice the Defendant submitted a reply on 26.6.2003 asking for renewal of lease. Plaintiff demanded renewal only after enhancement of rent to a tune of Rs. 80 per sq. feet, which was not acceptable to the Defendant. Consequently the lease expired. The suit was instituted on the ground of expiry of period of lease and specific assertion was that the cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of the Court on 30.6.2003 after expiry of the period of lease and thereafter on all subsequent dates when the Defendant continued his occupancy and also after expiry of the period when the Plaintiff offered for renewal at the new rate and the offer was turned down.

(3.) The revisionist-Defendant filed written statement admitted the relationship of the landlord and tenant and the execution of the iease deed and also that the suit was frivolous and was liable to be dismissed. The claim of the Defendant was that the suit is barred on the ground of limitation and principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and that the Plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hand. It was further contended that the Defendant was in occupation of the premises as tenant since last 35 years for a fixed term of lease, the fixed term lease was renewed from time to time on enhancement of rent by 5%. However, it was admitted that the deed for the last time was executed for a fresh period of 5 years and the rent was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 2640 commencing from 1st July 1998. The Defendant denied that the renewal clause was vague and, therefore, void. There was an express agreement that the rate of rent will be fixed on a mutual agreement. Defendant claimed that he had made a request on several occasions for renewal of the lease some time verbally and on other occasion by means of a letter, though it was contended that the said letters were handed over personally.