The main legal point established in this judgment is that a lease renewal must be exercised within the time limit specified in the lease agreement and that mere acceptance of rent does not imply automatic renewal of the lease.

IA No.9291/2013

1. This is an application filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass a decree in terms of the relief sought in the Plaint. As per the amended plaint the plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction, possession, permanent injunction and damages/mesne profits for property bearing No.19 in Block No.171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi.

2. It is the averment in the plaint that the suit property was let out to defendant No.1 company by virtue of a registered lease agreement dated 31.7.2009. The lease was for a fixed period of three years commencing 1.8.2009 and expiring on 31.07.2012. As per clause 4 of the lease agreement the property was to be used only for the purpose of residence of defendant No.2 who is stated to be an ex member of Lok Sabha from the Motihari Constituency of Bihar. The lease is silent about the post defendant No.2 occupies in defendant No.1 Company. Alongwith the lease agreement, a hire agreement dated 1.8.2009 between plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 was also executed which was co-terminus with the lease agreement. The defendant No.1 was obliged to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- per month to the plaintiff No.1 as per the lease agreement and Rs.2,40,000/- per month to plaintiff No.2 as per the hire agreement being a total of Rs.4,00,000/- per month. In terms of clause 8 of the Lease Agreement the lease was to expire by efflux of time on 31.07.2012.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that there is no dispute or controversy regarding the lease agreement and the terms and conditions of the hire agreement. He submits that both documents are admitted by the defendants. Reliance is placed on various correspondences written to the defendant much prior to the expiry of the lease agreement on 31.07.2012. It is urged that instead of vacating the suit premises on expiry of the lease agreement, the defendants have continued to illegally occupy and trespass in the said premises. He hence submits that the decree for possession can be passed based on these admissions which are self evident from a reading of the written statement and documents.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant has made two submissions to submit that no decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed. He firstly submits that the plaintiffs have illegally clubbed the two agreements, namely, the Lease Agreement and the Hire Agreement and thereafter added the rent to make it a monthly rent of Rs.4,00,000/- per month and brought the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that as the rental as per the Lease Agreement is only Rs.1,60,000/- per month and hence the pecuniary jurisdiction would be of District Court and not of this High Court. In this context it is submitted that there is no relief sought qua the second agreement. No relief is sought regarding the fixtures and fittings and hence it is not permissible for the plaintiff to club the rentals payable under the two agreements and file a combined suit. It is further stated that whether the two agreements are coterminous or not are issues which would have to be gone into at the time of the evidence. Reliance is placed on the order of the Division Bench in FAO (OS) 413/2014 dated 19.09.2014 to contend that this issue was left open to be decided at the time of evidence.

5. Learned senior counsel has secondly submitted that a renewal notice was sent to the plaintiffs on 11.8.2012 as admitted by the plaintiff. As this has been received by the plaintiff the lease got renewed. Along-with the renewal notice it is urged that a demand draft for rent for August 2012 to January 2013 was also sent. On this ground, it is stated that no basis is made out for allowing the present application.

6. In Rejoinder learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has relied on order I Rule 1 CPC and Order II Rule 3 CPC to submit that two cause of actions can be joined. It is urged that having joined the two cause of actions it is the value of the