The court upheld the eviction decree, confirming that the lease had expired and was not validly renewed, thus justifying the termination notice and the determination of mesne profit.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

1. These Civil Revision Applications are filed by the original Defendant, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court in eviction suit filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (for short “PSCC Act”) and in enquiry under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short), and as confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai.

2. The Respondents are the original Plaintiffs, who are the landlords of the property bearing Survey No.13 (part) corresponding CTS No.458, area admeasuring 1204 sq. yards (962.10 sq. mtrs.) situated at village Oshiwara, near Oshiwara Bridge, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400 102 (for short “the suit premises”).

3. The Applicants are the original Defendants before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The parties are hereinafter referred to by their nomenclature as per the Trial Court.

4. The Plaintiffs had executed Lease Deed 24 July 1961, in favour of defendant, for a period of 20 years. After lease period came to an end, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 18 April 2001, terminating the Lease Deed. The said termination notice was replied by the Defendants, by its letter dated 8 June 2001. Since the Defendants did not vacate the suit premises, the Plaintiffs filed eviction suit in the month of July 2001, being T.E. Suit No.91/101 of 2001, before the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, under Section 41 of PSCC Act.

5. It was the case of the Plaintiffs in plaint that they had let out the suit premises to M/s.Caltax (India) Limited, who were the predecessor of the defendant-Corporation, by executing the Lease Deed dated 24 July 1961 on monthly rent of Rs.400/- for a period of twenty years, starting from 15 April 1961. It was further case of the Plaintiffs that as per renewal clause 3(f) of the Lease Deed, after expiry of twenty years, the lease can be extended for further period of ten years, twice. Therefore, the period of lease came to an end on 15 April 2001. A prayer for eviction and mesne-profit was sought.

6. The Defendants appeared in the suit and filed its written statement denying the submissions made by the plaintiff. Both the parties thereafter led evidence.

7. After considering the evidence on record, documents, and after hearing both the parties, the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 11 June 2004, directed the Defendants to vacate the suit premises within a period of four months and enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure was passed, for determination of mesne-profit.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants preferred an Appeal bearing Appeal No.167 of 2004 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. After hearing both the parties, the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai dismissed the Appeal filed by the original Defendant No.1.

9. The Plaintiffs thereafter preferred an application to fix the mesne-profit at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per month from 1 June 2001 till handing over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs by Defendant No.1.

10. The Trial Court thereafter heard both the parties on ‘Mesne-Profit Application’ being Miscellaneous Notice No.1996 of 2004. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 3 October 2007, fixed the mesne-profit @ Rs.93,227/- per month with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

11. Defendant No.1 being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgment and order dated 3 October 2007, preferred Appeal No.313 of 2007 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai dismissed the Appeal filed by original Defendant No.1 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

12. Defendant No.1 being dis-satisfied by the judgment and decree passed in Appeal No.167 of 2004 in T.E. Suit No.91/101 of 2001, and being dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23 Au