The contractual right of renewal cannot override the provisions of a special statute, and the landlord has the right to maintain a suit for eviction under the special statute.

Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ;-

1. This is the defendant's second appeal, who lost in both the courts below. It arises out of judgment and decree dated 22.7.1994 passed by the District Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur, in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/1990 arising out of judgment and decree dated 26: 1 0.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.39-A/1989 by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, JagdaJpur, Distt. Bastar. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 12.9.1995 on the following substantial questions of law :

(1) Whether the lease coupled with licence granted in favour of the present appellant was irrevocable?

(2) If yes, whether a suit under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was not competent?

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed the suit for arrears of rent and eviction from the tenanted accommodation, which is an open land, on which the defendant is mooing a retail petroleum outlet. The plaint allegations are that this land was previously owned by one Shri Abbas Ali Jama, from whom the plaintiff had purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 28.11.1983 and consequently, he became the landlord thereof. On a need to construct a house, the plaintiff required the said land and for this, he terminated the tenancy of the defendant by sending a notice with effect from 31.10.1984. When the premises was not vacated, even after the said termination, the plaintiff had to file the suit mainly based on section 12(1)(n) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that its tenancy cannot be terminated by the said notice with effect from 31.10.1984. The defendant pleaded that para 4(b) of the lease deed dated 10.10.1975, which was the first lease deed in relation to the said accommodation, provides that if the lessee i.e., the defendant shall be desirous of taking a renewal of lease of the demised premises, upon the expiration of the term Wanted by the lease deed dated 10.10.1975, then the lessor shall on receipt of a notice in writing to that effect, grant lease i.e., a fresh 'lease of the demised premises for one further period/s not exceeding 5 years each at the same rent and upon the same terms and conditions in all respects as contained in the lease deed dt. 10.1 0.1975. In fact, the defendant claimed its right of renewal on its desire under section 5(2) and 7(3) of The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking~ in India) Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the Act). Its contention was that it is not correct to interpret that the defendant could claim only one renewal of the lease, as is being interpreted by the plaintiff. It contended that the defendant shall be entitled to continue to occupy and use the demised premises for such further period as it may desire notwithstanding whether a fresh lease has been executed and registered or not by the lesser. The defendant had also taken a plea that the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 would not be made applicable in this case in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

3. The learned trial court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act were applicable in this case and the plaintiff needed the said accommodation for constructing a house on it. It was also held that since there was a clause of renewal on desire for 5 years only in the lease deed dated , 10th of October 1975 and the defendant was holding the possession since 151 of November 1974, tl1erefore, in any case this lease cannot be deemed to be effective after 31.1 0.1984 and the defendant cannot seek protection under sections 5(2) and 7(3) of the aforesaid Act and the lease stands terminated from the said date.

4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, but the lower appellate court dismissed its appeal confirming the judgme