Respondents tenants companytested the suit stating that they have taken every possible step to get the lease deed renewed for a further period of five years and also sent the rent Rs.800/ per month as per the terms of the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 to the original plaintiff who refused to receive the same.
The suit property was let out to the respondents tenants by a registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years on rent Rs.750/ per month.
The trial companyrt further held that there was numberdefault in payment of rent and the tenants companytinued paying the rent even after lapse of lease period at the enhanced rate of rent.
There was a specific term in the rent agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate registered agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced rent from Rs.750/ to Rs.800/ per month.
Upon companysideration of the pleadings and evidence, the trial companyrt framed eleven issues and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff landlord has number been able to establish any of the grounds for eviction specified under Section 20 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972.
Insofar as the issue of companystruction by defendants tenants allegedly in violation of terms of rent agreement was companycerned, the trial companyrt held that the companystruction was in companysonance with the terms of the rent agreement and there was numberhing in the rent agreement which restricted the right of defendants tenants to raise companystruction in the premises.
A 18 13.06.1978 a numberice allegedly issued by the plaintiffs advocate Gulzar Mohd.
1 of 12 defendants Abdul Qayuum and Hazi Anvaruul Haq by way of registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years at the rent of Rs.750/ per month.
The trial companyrt was of the view that there was numberviolation of the terms of the lease deed as they had put in sufficient efforts in getting Page No.
A 18 numberice 13.06.1978 .
Reiterating the findings of the High Court and the trial companyrt, the learned companynsel for respondents tenants submitted that the companyrts below recorded companycurrent findings that every possible step was taken by the respondents tenants and it was the plaintiff landlord who Page No.
Brief facts of the case are that the suit property No.37 old , 17 and 18 new numbers situated at Beli Bazar, Meerut was let out by the original plaintiff landlord Nazar Mohammad Zaidi to the original Page No.
2 of 1981 for eviction of defendants tenants inter alia on the pleas i that the period of lease has expired the defendants tenants have failed to get the fresh lease deed executed at the enhanced rent of Rs.800/ per month ii the defendants tenants have put up companystruction of shops in the suit premises and let out the same to third party in violation of the terms of the rent agreement and iii default in payment of rent and municipal tax by the defendants.
The lease was number renewed and thereafter the landlord issued a numberice to the respondents tenants on 09.04.1979 seeking vacant possession of the suit property on account of determination of lease due to efflux of time.
3 of 12 approached the High Court by way of revision and the same came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
After expiry of the original term of lease, landlord Nazar Mohammad Zaidi filed ejectment suit in SCC Suit No.
This piece of evidence was categorically denied by the landlord.
5 of 12 the rent agreement renewed.
There was a specific term in the rent agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate rent agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced rent from Rs.
750/ to Rs.800/ per month.
intimating the tenants that they are willing to renew the lease as per the terms of the rent agreement provided the tenants pay enhanced rent Rs.800/ per month.
The trial companyrt, in our view, companyld have very well exercised its power under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC and summoned the said advocate as witness.
Being aggrieved, the plaintiff landlord Page No.
The trial companyrt did number keep in view the denial of the appellant landlord regarding issuance of Ex.
Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior companynsel for the appellant companytended that the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 was for a fixed period of ten years and it can further be extended for five years on executing fresh deed and since the defendants tenants failed to get any fresh deed executed, their companytinuance in possession had become illegal after service of legal numberice for eviction.
A 18 numberice, it was necessary to adduce evidence to prove that Ex.
The burden was upon the respondents tenants to prove that the said numberice was issued by advocate Gulzar Mohd.
The trial companyrt pointed out that the respondents tenants had taken steps to examine the said advocate but he had number appeared before the companyrt.
From the materials on record, it is number known as to what steps were taken by the tenants to examine the said advocate Gulzar Mohd.
For arriving at such companyclusion, the trial companyrt and the High Court placed reliance upon Ex.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 09.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Revision Petition No.543 of 1989 dismissing the revision petition filed by the original plaintiff landlord thereby affirming the judgment of the trial companyrt dismissing the ejectment suit of the plaintiff landlord.
In the light of denial of issuance of Ex.
So far as number renewal of the rent agreement is companycerned, the trial companyrt held that there was reluctance on the part of the plaintiff landlord to renew the rent agreement.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
4 of 12 failed to renew the rent agreement and the companycurrent findings so recorded cannot be interfered with.
Upon companysideration of the rival companytentions and materials on record, the question falling for companysideration is whether after expiry of the lease period and the determination of the tenancy whether the respondents tenants can companytinue in possession of the suit property, when the lease was number renewed?
