By a registered indenture of lease dated January 8, 1965 Ex.
situate at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, more fully described in the plan annexed to the lease deed, to the defendant No.
1 shall restore possession of the demised premises to the plaintiffs father after removing all the superstructure built upon the land.
June 1, 1971 the terms whereof were reduced to writing in the form of the draft lease agreement Ex.
Clause 9 of the agreement provided that the defendant No.
I for a period of five years.
700 per month.
X 22 ft.
B 2 was inadmissible for want of registration under Section 49 of the Registration Act and that in any event the period of the lease as stipulated w.e.f.
The rent stipulated in the lease deed was Rs.
They held that it was incumbent on the Court under Order VII, Rule 7 of the CPC, 1908, to take numberice of the altered circumstances since the institution of the suit and mould the relief accordingly in order to shorten the litigation and to do companyplete justice between the parties.
B 2, which remained to be registered as required under Section 17 1 d of the Registration Act, 1908.
The plaintiffs served a numberice dated February 1, 1976 upon the defendants determining the tenancy on the ground of forfeiture under Section 111 g of the Act companyplaining of breach of the terms of the lease.
1 put up a super structure worth more than rupees one lakh and carried on the business of running a hotel from the demised premises.
Acting upon the grant, the defendant No.
June 1, 1971 with an option for further extension of the same by three years and therefore they were entitled to companytinue in possession of the demised premises.
It further stipulated that on his failure to companyply with the said companydition, the plaintiffs father would be liable to recover possession of the aforesaid plot of land together with mesne profits at Rs.
On March 27, 1976 the plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment and mesne profits.
311 per month.
After the expiry of the period of five years, the parties entered into an agreement to renew the monthly lease for a further period of nine years w.e.f.
A 3, the father of the plaintiffs demised a piece of open land admeasuring 84 ft.
Put very shortly, the essential facts are these.
P. Sen, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated July 5, 1983 upholding the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated December 31, 1982 and those of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated March 5, 1982 and decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession of open land described in the plaint schedule and more mesne profits thereof.
