High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 18 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 317 of 2014 Revisionist :- Durgesh Kumar Basudeo Opposite Party :- Rajveer Singh Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ayub Khan Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-landlord. By means of this revision petition filed under Article 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, petitioner has questioned the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the trial judge dated 14.05.2014 in his S.C.C. No.20 of 2013. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a tenancy agreement entered into between the respondent-landlord and the tenant- petitioner for a period of 11 months starting from 1st August, 2012 and ending on 30th June, 2013. Rent agreed between the parties was Rs.2900/- per month for the premises let out to the petitioner. A notice terminating the tenancy was issued by the landlord to the petitioner allegedly on 22.02.2013. This notice was sent to petitioner with the recital to the effect that 'my client does not want to continue your tenancy after expiry period of the notice'. The notice was for a period of thirty days that would expire obviously with the service thereof computing the period of thirty days. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed by the landlord under the Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 taking additional plea that since March, 2013 no rent has been paid to the plaintiff-landlord, as agreed by the parties under the rent agreement. It appears that the petitioner, having received notice, tried to pay the agreed rent by a money order, which he claimed to have been received back and therefore it was service by refusal. The defence was taken also to the effect that no rent was due and that agreement was to continue till June, 2013 and therefore, it was a premature suit and so the plaintiff was liable to be non-suited. It further transpires from the record that plaintiff upon receiving summons of the suit immediately deposited the amount of arrears of rent that would have accrued since March, 2013 until such deposit. Tender receipts have been filed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rent has continued to be deposited with the Court and it was always open for the landlord to receive the same. The suit got decreed on the ground that since it was a fixed period tenancy, the tenancy was to end at the expiry of the term and, therefore, even if the notice was issued prior to expiry of the tenancy as per the agreement, tenancy would have automatically come to an end on the arrival of the date given in the rent agreement. The issue has come to be decided in favour of the landlord- respondent to the effect that the landlord was justified in determining the tenancy and even if it has been determined prior, it would have automatically come to an end on the date of expiry of the tenancy. The suit has been decreed on 14.05.2014. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner is that since the petitioner has never been in arrears of rent and it was fault on the part of the landlord for not receiving the money order, the tenant petitioner had no other option but to make necessary deposit in the Court itself and that he has been doing. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice having been issued much prior to expiry of the term of tenancy as prescribed under the agreement in writing between the parties, the notice would not have validated any determination of tenancy as per the provisions contained under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He also argued that the landlord having taken the plea of forfeiture in terms of non payment of rent by the tenant in the plaint of suit, a tenant having deposited the amount well immediately after receiving the summons on the date fixed as tender was filed, petitioner ought to have been given benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent that the tenancy was not on month to month basis as it was fixed term tenancy. The tenancy being for a fixed period would get automatically dissolved on the expiry of the term. He submits that a mere issuance of notice prior to expiry of thirty (30) days period of the rent agreement would not be invalid. He further argues that rent agreement having not been extended any further, even if the notice was that the landlord-respondent did not want to continue tenancy with the petitioner, it would automatically come to an end on the expiry of the term i.e. on 30.06.2013. He submits that the judgment and decree has been passed by the trial judge on 14.05.2014 and, therefore, the period after expiry of the lease/tenancy on 30.06.2013, status of petitioner would not be of tenant as if having a right of holding over. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal & anr vs. Rajeev Shukla (passed in SCC Revision No.39 of 2018) in which vide paragraph 37, the Court has held thus: "37. The learned Court below has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Lalji Tandon (Dead), AIR 2004 SC 32, and the judgment of Delhi High Court in Smt. Dr. P.S. Vedi Vs. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited, AIR 1994 Delhi 255, as also the other judgments of the Supreme Court that once the term of lease expired by efflux of time the tenancy determined automatically. The tenant in possession is a tenant 'at sufferance'. The possession is not lawful and such possession can only continue until eviction in due course of law. Mere continuance in possession after determination of lease did not amount to "holding over". After expiry of fixed period of term of the tenancy, even if the tenant remained in possession and deposited the rent in bank, it cannot be deemed to be a consent for extension of lease by the lessor. Thus, in the present case, as the landlord has adopted the legal recourse throughout to evict the revisionist-tenant, there did not exist any holding over. " (emphasis added) Applying the above legal proposition, as has been followed by this Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, I find in the present case also, the possession of the petitioner was in the status of a tenant 'at sufferance'. The tenancy did not continue as such within the terminology used under the Act. The lease/tenancy agreement having come to an end on 30.06.2013, the issue, therefore, in my considered view, has rightly been answered in favour of the landlord. In such view of the matter, therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant submits that he may be granted some time to vacate the premises. Counsel for the landlord respondent submits that only a reasonable time may be afforded.
Decision
In view of the above, while dismissing the petition, I hereby observe that execution of the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2014 passed by the trial judge shall not be put to execution until 28.02.2023 and the petitioner also, in all circumstances, shall be vacating the premises on or before 28th February, 2023 and shall also deposit in advance three months' rent at the rate at which he is paying as on date on or before giving undertaking before the Court below. Thus, petitioner shall also be filing affidavit of undertaking before the Trial court on or before 15th December 2022. It is also provided that entire amount that has already come to be paid and will be paid under this order, shall be released in favour of the landlord by the court below. However, in the event of default in any of the directions issued herein above, the interim protection granted to the revision applicant shall cease to operate and the landlord will be free to get the decree executed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 25.11.2022 P Kesari Digitally signed by PRACHI KESARWANI Date: 2022.12.02 10:31:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad