The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the lease was valid, but the petitioner's entitlement to continue in possession beyond the lease period due to subsequent events should be independently examined by the trial court, and the duration of the lease and the petitioner's right to possession beyond the lease period due to other events can co-exist.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - The petitioner is the lessee, and the respondents are the lessors. Both parties entered into an agreement of lease on 1st June 2015. As the lease was for five years, it had to end by 31st May 2020.

2. On 31st July 2019, however, the respondents terminated the lease on the grounds of non-payment of rent. They required the petitioner to vacate the building. In that context, on 14th August 2019, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.208/2019/A before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa. The suit contained the following reliefs:

a) For a Decree/Order declaring that the termination of the lease by the defendant no.1 in the manner done in the notice of termination dated 31/7/2019 is contrary to the covenants, terms and conditions of the deed of lease dated 30/5/2015 and as null and void.

b) For a Decree/Order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, interfering with the Bar & Restaurant business carried out by the plaintiff in the demised premises or from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the demised premises or dispossessing the plaintiff from the demised premises, for the entire reminder tenure of the lease ending 31/5/2020, without following due process of law.

c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants dispossessing the plaintiff from the demised premises, for the entire reminder tenure of the lease ending 31/5/2020, without following due process of law.

d) For ad interim ex parte relief in terms of prayer (c ) above.

e) For such other and further relief 's as the circumstances of the case may require. (italics supplied)

3. On 16th August 2019, the trial Court ordered status quo, and it has still been in force.

4. As we have already noticed, the lease had to expire on 31st May 2020. And it did. Before the lease had expired, the petitioner pleaded in the suit that his possession should not be disturbed until the lease expired. After 31st May 2020, once the lead had expired, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 17th June 2020, asking him to vacate the premises. Then, on 26th June 2020, the petitioner replied. In that reply, the petitioner has pleaded, what he terms, 'subsequent events' and insisted that the respondents owed him Rs.15.00 lakhs. And until they repaid the amount, the petitioner must be allowed to continue in possession, 'as has been orally agreed'.

5. Later, the petitioner has filed two amendment applications to incorporate, as part of the pleadings in the suit, certain aspects: (a) the respondents' notice to quit on the expiry of the lease; (b) the petitioner's entitlement to continue in possession until the petitioners have repaid the amounts. Besides that, through the second application, the petitioner wanted to amend the interlocutory application, too. The trial court has substantially allowed both the applications.

6. That said, the trial Court reckoned that the petitioner should not be allowed to delete his specific assertion that he should continue until the lease had expired. The trial Court felt it would amount to allowing the petitioner to withdraw an admission.

Two Orders but One Writ Petition:

7. Though the petitioner has filed one writ petition, that concerns two distinct orders in two applications. The orders in those applications may have been rendered through a device known as 'common order', but, for all practical purposes, the common order contains two orders conveniently rendered compendiously. So, I reckon there ought to be two separate petitions of challenge, even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Faced with this technicality, the petitioner's counsel wanted to proceed with the first amendment application and further wanted to file a fresh writ petition concerning the second one: the amendment to the interlocutory application.

8. Now, I will focus on the submissions advanced by the respective learne