TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings of all the courts that the option for renewal was exercised after the expiry of the lease period. The option for renewal exercised was, therefore, contrary to terms of clause (9) of the lease agreement. The clauses of renewal requiring fixation of terms and conditions for renewed period of lease mutually or in the alterntive through village Mukhia and Panchas are uncertain and incapable of specific performance. After legal notice of renewal, the lessor did not send any positive reply and instead filed a suit for ejectment, therefore, there was no mutual consent for renewal. The forum agreed to for deciding dispute was through local Mukhia and Panchas of the village. The renewal clauses of the agreement were vague and incapable of specific performance. The Mukhia and Panchas were not named in the agreement and the method of choosing either of the two forums was not specified. The cross suit filed by the lessor for specific performance of the agreement of renewal was rightly dismissed throughout. The original period of lease expired on 19.7.1977 and the suit for ejectment on the ground of expiry of the lease was filed on 16.6.1978 which was well within the period of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Title Suit No.59/78 on 16.6.1978 seeking ejectment of the lessee from the suit premises on the ground that the term of lease had expired. 5. The lessee filed a counter suit No.13/80 seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement of renewal of lease on his alleged right of option of renewal. 6. The two cross suits were tried jointly and decided by common judgment. 7. The trial court by common judgment dated 16.3.1987 dismissed the suit for ejectment filed by the lessor by holding that after expiry of the initial period of fifteen years of lease, acceptance of rent by the lessor had resulted in renewal of lease and the lessee would be held to be holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Based on the above finding that the lessee was holding over as a result of the acceptance of rent by the lessor for the period subsequent to the expiry of lease, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suit for ejectment could not have been filed without terminating the lease by statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. The trial court by the common judgment dismissed the counter suit seeking specific performance of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low, the lessee has approached this Court in these two appeals. 14. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S. B. Sanyal reiterated the legal stand taken by the lessee in the courts below. It is contended that on expiry of original period of lease, acceptance of rent for the month of August and from March 1978 to May 1978 clearly showed an assent on the part of the lessor to continue the lease. There was deemed renewal of the lease on the same terms and conditions of original lease as an effect of holding over by the lessee under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is argued that the courts below erred in holding that the lease, which stood renewed as an effect of holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, was not required to be terminated by statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as a pre-condition for filing a suit for ejectment. 15. In respect of the cross suits of the lessee seeking specific performance of the contract of renewal of the lease, it is submitted that the relevant contract clauses (7) (9) of the lease deed should have been construed reading them with other clauses therein to hold that option for renewal could have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions. 19. The lessor in the present case had neither expressly nor impliedly agreed for renewal. The renewal as provided in the original contract was required to be obtained by following a specified procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms or in the alternative through the mediation of Mukhias and Panchas. In the instant case, there is a renewal clause in the contract prescribing a particular period and mode of renewal which was an agreement to the contrary within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the face of specific clauses (7) (9) for seeking renewal there could be no implied renewal by holding over on mere acceptance of the rent offered by the lessee . In the instant case, option of renewal was exercised not in accordance with the terms of renewal clause that is before the expiry of lease. It was exercised after expiry of lease and the lessee continued to remain in use and occupation of the leased premises. The rent offered was accepted by the lessor for the period the lessee overstayed on the leased premises. The lessee, in the above circumstances, could not claim that he was holding over as a lessee within the meaning of Section 116 of the Trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
