SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Ker) 47

Judges : KOSHI,M.S.MENON
Yohannan - Appellant
Versus
Vasudevan Chakkiyar - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 514 of 1951
Decided On : 03/11/1954
Advocates Appeared :
K. P. Abraham; ForAppellant T. S. Venkitewara Iyer; For Respondent

An option for renewal does not confer a perpetual right of renewal and is only available for one renewal at the specified time.

Headnote:

Renewal - Redemption - 12 RWLsoeU WuM'V Bvw I RO•LD WLeU kaM vyVfO KuMpOWSpL WLe 3/4MjV k3/4MRjLDOU 15 jMs3/4MO 15 30 vNfoOq Aa0"OvfvWLw°¥ fDV BiLgU oLrM IuOfM kMaM"OWSpL RaODfMjOU yOfMy0 IuOfMR"LaO3/40 IDV kODRCr oWC vi"M (KOV).

Fact of the Case:

Defendants 2 and 3 appealed a suit for redemption, arguing that an option for renewal under Ext. A should have prevented redemption. The court found that the option for renewal was only available for one renewal at the end of 12 years from the date of Ext. A and had already been spent. The court rejected the argument that the option could be exercised at the time of a demand for surrender.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the option for renewal had expired and could not prevent redemption. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues: The main issue was whether the option for renewal under Ext. A could prevent redemption.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the clause for renewal and cited legal authorities to support the view that an option for renewal does not confer a perpetual right of renewal. The court emphasized that the option for renewal was only available for one renewal at the end of 12 years from the date of Ext. A.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment :-

1. Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 12 of 1113 of the District Court of Kottayam, a suit for redemption, are the appellants before us. Though a number of pints were indicated the only point pressed before us by Mr. K.P. Abraham, learned counsel for the appellants, is that an option for renewal obtains under Ext. A dated 9.1.1074 and in view of that, redemption should have been refused by the court below. The clause in Ext. A on which reliance has been placed reads as follows:

"12 RWLsoeU WuM'V Bvw I RO•LD WLeU kaM vyVfO KuMpOWSpL WLe 3/4MjV k3/4MRjLDOU 15 jMs3/4MO 15 30 vNfoOq Aa0"OvfvWLw°¥ fDV BiLgU oLrM IuOfM kMaM"OWSpL RaODfMjOU yOfMy0 IuOfMR"LaO3/40 IDV kODRCr oWC vi"M (KOV)."

2. The provision for renewal embodied in the clause extracted above, as we understand it, will be available only for one renewal at the end of 12 years from 9.1.1074 and not for similar renewals in perpetuity at the end of every cycle of 12 years from the said date. According to us the option must be considered as having spent itself in 1086 and as no longer available as a defence to redemption at present.

3. There can be no doubt that the proper way of construing a covenant for renewal is as stated by Lord Selbourne in 54 L.J.Q.B. 6:

"I am not inclined to adopt the language which is to be found in some authorities, to the effect that there is a sort of legal resumption against a right of perpetual renewal in cases of this kind; but these authorities certainly do impose upon any one claiming such a right the burden of strict proof, and are strongly against inferring it from any equivocal expressions which may fairly be capable of being otherwise interpreted".

4. In 67 L.J.Q.B. 296 the words "with the option of renewal" in a lease for a term of three years came up for consideration. Bruse, J. agreed that in such cases what the option for renewal meant was "the renewing of the old lease for the same period and on the same terms" and went on to say:

"Unless such a meaning is given to the word 'renewal' the words in the present agreement are deprived of all legal significance, and I am reluctant to come to the conclusion that the words inserted in a legal document ought to be taken as having no effect. But then it is said that if the terms of renewed lease are to be the same as the terms of the original lease, the renewed lease must contain a stipulation for renewal, and so on in perpetuity. But such a construction is, I think, manifestly unreasonable. 'With option of renewal' does not mean with continued options of renewal after renewal. There is, I think, sufficient authority to support the view that an express provision that all covenants in the original lease shall be inserted in the renewed lease will not include a covenant for a further renewal".

5. To the same effect are the observations of Mukerji, J. in A.I.R. 1919 Calcutta 620:

"Where there is a covenant for renewal, if the option does not state the terms of renewal, the new lease would be for the same period and on the same terms as the original lease in respect of all the essential conditions thereof, except as to the covenant for renewal itself".

6. In (1944) 1 All. E.R. 670 a more difficult provision for renewal came up for consideration:

"The tenant is hereby granted the option of continuing the tenancy for a further period of six months on the same terms and conditions including this clause, provided the tenant gives to the landlord in writing four weeks' notice of his intention to exercise his option".

7. Uthwatt, J. held that no perpetual right of renewal was conferred on the tenant and that the option, if exercised, only entitled him to occupation for a period not exceeding 18 months from the date of the original agreement:

"Turning to the actual language of the clause, the first thing one observes is that, in terms, there is granted to the tenant a single option exercisable only once upon the named event, and the subject matter of that option is an option'of continuing the tenancy for




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top