COMMON ORDER: M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited plaintiff in unnumbered plaint on the file of Distract Munsif Court, Pollachi have preferred these two civil revision petitions, under Art.227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved against the order dated 9.3.2001 by which the plaint was rejected and the unnumbered petition under Sec.7(A) of Tamil Nadu City Tenant’s Protection act to fix a reasonable rent was also rejected.

2. The case in brief for the disposal of both these revision petitions is as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit as a tenant under Sec.42 of the Specific Relief Act directing the first defendant to renew the lease in respect of the suit properties for a period of ten years from 1.10.1999 and if the first defendant fails to execute the lease deed, pass a decree to execute the lease by Court on behalf of the first defendant. The plaintiff also filed an application under Sec.7(A) of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act to fix a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land. By an Agreement of lease by the plaintiff with defendants 2 and 3 on 19.3.1991, the property was taken for a period of ten years. The lease period expired on 30.9.1999 and there is a clause in the lease deed that the lease for a further period of ten years on the same terms and conditions except the rent to be fixed at that time on the basis of mutual agreement and a fresh lease deed to be executed. The first defendant is the purchaser of the suit properties from defendants 2 and 3 and he has not agreed to renew the lease from 1.10.1999, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit as well as the application.

3. The Court below without numbering the plaint of the application, after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff, rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaint is not maintainable as framed and also rejected the petition. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present revision petitions.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) whether the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint and the petition without notice to the other side is proper and correct? and (2) To what relief?

6.Points: It is admitted that the suit property originally belonged to defendants 2 and 3 and they have leased the same to the plaintiff on 19.3.1991 and the purpose of lease was established, to lease outlet for the sale of petroleum products. The lease is for a period of ten years on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000. As per Clause 2(C), there is a provision for renewal for a further period of ten years on the same terms and conditions at mutually agreed rentals. During 1996, defendants 2 and 3 have sold their interest in the property to the 1st defendant separately. He is also bound by the agreement of lease and the renewal clause in the agreement. The first defendant did not agree to renew the lease deed for a further period of ten years calculated from 1.10.1999. The first defendant had purchased the property from defendants 2 and 3 knowing fully well about the subsistence of the lease agreement and the clause relating to renewal. The plaintiff was always ready to register the lease deed and as the first defendant failed to execute the renewal, them suit was filed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants mainly contented that the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct. The revision petitioner/ plaintiff is only a statutory tenant by operation of the law and therefore they are not entitled to call upon the owner of the property to renew the lease for a further period of ten years. In short, according to the first defendant, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit or any petition and hence, the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct and on interference is called for.

8. As adverted to, the trial Court without issuing any notice after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff, dismissed the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document