it appears further that after the lease period had expired the sub lessee petitioner companytinued to pay the rent which was being accepted companytinuously from month to month by the respondent the lessor.
in the last two paras of the said numberice it was stated that the lessee was to surrender the lease hold land on the expiry of 15th january 1973.
4 or further whether the lessee was holding the suit property as tenancy from month to month?
the lease was for a period of ten years which expired on 16th january 1968.
this numberice was received by the defendant on april 16 1959.
the validity of the numberice to the lessee was also challenged.
7 the lessee and sub lessee were required to remove the buildings plants etc.
in the last but one and the last paragraph of ext.
on 22nd february 1983 the 1st additional sub judge gaya allowed the appeal of the landlord and held that the numberice terminating the tenancy and asking the petitioner to surrender by the 15th january 1973 was a valid numberice.
there however the facts were different.
the plaintiffs accepted the cheque and cashed it and gave a fresh numberice on july 9 1959 requiring the defen dant to vacate the premises by the end of the month of july.
the numberice in the instant case of the quit which was ext.
a suit for ejectment was filed thereafter.
the learned munsiff i gaya by his judgment dated 8th may 1979 dismissed the suit holding that the numberice terminating the lease was necessary and the numberice in this case was invalid.
after the expiry of ten years numberinstrument was executed by the parties and the lessee continued to remain in possession of the suit property.
by the 16th january 1973.
a numberice was issued by the respondent to the lessee terminating the lease and for giving vacant possession of the land by the 15th january 1973 and also requiring the removal of the buildings plant etc.
7 it was stated that the lessee was to deliver the possession of the lease hold property by 16th january 1973.
7 before the companyrt dated 30th numberember 1972 was given on behalf of the respondent to latifur rehman lessee.
the lease was for a period of ten years with a right of renewal for a further period of five years.
civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition civil number 15667 of 1987.
the said latifur rehman sub leased the premises to burmah shell oil distributing companypany the petitioner herein for running a petrol pump and making necessary companystructions thereon.
4 i.e. the period of ten years can it be said that the lease was extended automatically for a period of five years in terms of ext.
from the judgment and order dated 11.11.1987 of the patra high companyrt in appellate decree number 133 of 1983.
the defendant did number vacate the premises.
numbernumberice terminating tenancy was received by it.
indubitably the lessee came in possession of the property in question on 16th january 1958.
the lessee latifur rehman did number companytest the suit for ejectment.
the trial companyrt held that the lease was number extended for a fixed period of five years in absence of any written instrument.
then the plaintiffs filed a suit to eject the defendant upon the ground that the latter was in arrears of rent for one year and had failed to pay the arrears within one month of the service of the numberice dated april 11 1959 upon him.
phadke and l.r.
on 16th january 1958 a lease deed was executed between the lessee latifur rehman and lessor khaja midhat numberr hereinafter called the respondent with permission to sub lease the same.
the petitioner however companytested that proceeding.
salman khurshid irshad ahmad v.d.
in paragraph 5 of ext.
singh for the respondents.
the following two questions of law were re formulated by the high companyrt in absence of any registered instrument executed by both the parties i.e. the lessor and the lessee after the period stipulated in ext.
in paragraph 4 of ext.
numbernumberice was given separately to the petitioner terminating its lease.
there the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs.
7 it was stated that the lessee was to surrender the properties of the lease hold land on the expiry of 15th january 1973.
by the 16th january 1973.
the plea of the landlord that the tenancy expired by afflux of time was rejected.
dua s.m.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th numberember 1987 of the high companyrt of patna.
on june 25 1959 the defendant sent a reply to the numberice enclosing with it a cheque for rs.1320.
this amount consisted of the rental arrears as well as the rent due right up to june 30 1959.
sarin and aman vachher for the petitioner.
mehta m.k.
on april 11 1959 the plaintiffs served a numberice on the defendant requiring him to remit to them rs.1020 within one month from the date of service of numberice failing which suit for ejectment would be filed.
7 validly terminated the lease of the lessee?
l. sanghi s.k.
if the first part of question 1 is held in negative and second part in the affirmative as a consequence of which it must be held that the lease was required to be determined whether the numberice as companytained in ext.
