MAIN POINTS
On termination of lease by afflux of time, the tenant continuing to occupy the premises becomes a tenant by sufferance and exposes himself to be sued for ejectment at any time without any prior notice or demand of possession.
Creating third party interest in tenanted premises without consent of the landlord makes the tenant liable for eviction.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. 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 court dismissing the ejectment suit of the plaintiff/landlord.

3. 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 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. 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. After expiry of the original term of lease, landlord (Nazar Mohammad Zaidi) filed ejectment suit in SCC Suit 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 construction 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.

4. Respondents-tenants contested 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 tenants further pleaded that the entire arrears of rent, damages along with interest etc. have been deposited in the court under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'U.P. Act 13 of 1972') and the suit for eviction is liable to be dismissed.

5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the trial court framed eleven issues and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff/landlord has not 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 construction by defendants/tenants allegedly in violation of terms of rent agreement was concerned, the trial court held that the construction was in consonance with the terms of the rent agreement and there was nothing in the rent agreement which restricted the right of defendants/tenants to raise construction in the premises. So far as non-renewal of the rent agreement is concerned, the trial court held that there was reluctance on the part of the plaintiff/landlord to renew the rent agreement. The trial court further held that there was no default in payment of rent and the tenants continued paying the rent even after lapse of lease period at the enhanced rate of rent. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/landlord approached the High Court by way of revision and the same came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

6. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended 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 continuance in possession had become illegal after service of legal notice for eviction. It was further contended that the courts below failed to appreciate that the respondents defaulted many times in payment of rent and payment of house tax to municipality and even on the plea under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the tenants defaulted in regularly depositing the admitted amount and therefore, the responde