SRI. SOUNDARARAJAN SUBRAMANI v. SRI.R.NILAKANTAN IYER

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the defendant assailing the ejectment order passed in O.S.No.3530/2024.

#2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

#3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff claims to have leased out the suit premises, Flat No. A-1401, to the defendant under a rental agreement dated 21.08.2023, for a fixed term of 11 months commencing from 19.08.2023. The plaintiff acknowledges having delivered possession of the flat to the defendant. As per the agreement, the defendant was required to pay monthly rent on or before the 19th of each calendar month. The plaintiff refers to Clause 15 of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR rental agreement, which confers upon both parties the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing one month’s prior written notice. The plaintiff contends that he intended to sell the suit property and, in this regard, requested the defendant to cooperate facilitating inspection by prospective buyers. Subsequently, by communication dated 16.02.2024, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to vacate the premises. Despite reminders, the defendant failed to respond, compelling the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 07.03.2024, thereby terminating the lease with effect from 09.04.2024, in accordance with Clause

#15. The plaintiff alleges that despite termination, the defendant failed to vacate, leaving him with no alternative but to initiate an ejectment suit.

#4. Upon receipt of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement. He contended that he has two children. His daughter pursuing her third-year law degree at Dayananda Sagar University and his son enrolled in a B.E. course at R.V. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR College Engineering therefore required accommodation in proximity their educational institutions. The defendant asserted that the lease was for a fixed term of 11 months commencing from 19.08.2023 and was subject to renewal. It was his case that the plaintiff could not have prematurely terminated the lease in the absence of any default in payment of rent. He further stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as an interest-free security deposit and was regularly paying a monthly rent of Rs.53,000/-, along with Rs.7,000/- towards maintenance. According to the defendant, the lease contained a lock-in period and therefore could not be terminated unilaterally by the plaintiff before the expiry of the lease term.

#5. Both parties were afforded an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court, having framed relevant issues, recorded evidence accordingly. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and produced 12 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-12. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant, apart from tendering oral evidence, did not produce any documentary evidence in rebuttal.

#6. Upon assessment of the material on record, the Trial Court answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that the tenancy stood validly terminated by issuance of a quit notice dated 07.03.2024, as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, the Trial Court directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff was further awarded mesne profits/damages at rate of Rs.10,000/- per day from the date of filing the suit until actual delivery of possession.

#7. Heard learned counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff, who appeared in person. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the rental agreement dated 21.08.2023 was for a fixed duration of 11 months, and during the subsistence of the lease, in the absence of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR any default, the plaintiff was not entitled to prematurely terminate the tenancy. He also contended that the lease agreement was inadequately stamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence. In the alternative, it was argued that the defendant had cooperated and expressed readiness to vacate the premises, but the plaintiff acted unreasonably by refusing to grant sufficient time for handing over possession.

#8. On the other hand, the plaintiff, appearing in person, submitted that considering his advanced age and his bona fide need to occupy the premises, he is not in a position to extend the time sought by the defendant for vacating the property.

#9. Having heard the counsel appearing defendant and party-in-person, the following point would arise for consideration: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR "Whether the judgment and decree under challenge in directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession suffers from perversity?"

#10. On a careful consideration of the pleadings and the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant, this Court finds that there is no dispute with respect to the existence of a jural relationship of landlord tenant between the parties. The defendant unequivocally admits that he was inducted into possession of the suit premises pursuant to a rental agreement entered into with the plaintiff. The said agreement is marked in evidence as Ex.P-1. Therefore, the relationship of lessor and lessee is clearly established and is not in controversy. At the appellate stage, the defendant’s counsel has sought to raise a fresh plea that the lease deed is insufficiently stamped and hence inadmissible in evidence, thereby invalidating the notice of termination. This line of argument is clearly untenable. The defendant, having acted under the lease agreement and enjoyed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR possession thereunder without raising any objection as to stamp duty before the Trial Court, cannot now be permitted to challenge its admissibility for the first time in appeal. It is well settled that such an objection, if not taken at the earliest possible stage, particularly when the document is marked in evidence without demur, stands waived. The defendant cannot approbate and reprobate by simultaneously deriving benefit from the lease agreement and also questioning its admissibility belatedly.

#11. It is an admitted position that the lease agreement executed between the parties is for a period of 11 months. However, it is trite law that where the lease period does not exceed one year and is not registered, the tenancy is deemed to be a monthly tenancy in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The mere stipulation of an 11-month term in the lease deed does not confer upon the tenant a right to occupy the premises the entire duration irrespective of termination. A lease of this nature being unregistered is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR treated as a month-to-month tenancy determinable by either party by giving fifteen days’ notice, or one month’s notice in case of lease for residential purposes, as per Section 106. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had no right to terminate the lease before the completion of 11 months is wholly misconceived and contrary to settled legal principles.

#12. Moreover, the agreement at Ex.P-1 contains Clause-15, which expressly permits either party to terminate the tenancy by issuing one month's written notice or paying one month’s rent in lieu of notice. The clause is mutual in nature and binding on both parties. The plaintiff, having invoked this clause and issued a notice of termination dated 07.03.2024, has duly complied with both the contractual and statutory requirements for termination of the tenancy. The termination was to take effect from 09.04.2024, thereby giving more than the minimum statutory notice period. The defendant's failure - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR to vacate despite such valid notice renders his continued possession unlawful.

#13. Significantly, the conduct of the defendant in seeking time to vacate the premises amounts to an implicit acknowledgment of the valid termination. It is not open to the defendant to contend that he cannot be evicted merely because the original agreement mentions a period of 11 months. In law, the existence of a monthly tenancy coupled with a termination clause means that the tenant cannot claim immunity from eviction solely on the strength of the fixed-term clause. The lease, though for a stated term, is in essence determinable at the option of either party upon issuance of proper notice.

#14. Upon a comprehensive reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the tenancy was lawfully terminated in accordance with Clause-15 of the agreement as well as the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:26722 RFA No. 633 of 2025 HC-KAR statutory mandate of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Trial Court, having rightly appreciated the legal and factual matrix, was justified in directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. The decree for ejectment is legally sustainable and does not suffer from any error, irregularity, or perversity. No exceptional circumstance or legal infirmity has been demonstrated to warrant interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the point formulated above is answered in the negative.

#15. For the reasons stated supra, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA,ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54