The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to the validity of a notice of termination of tenancy must be specifically pleaded in the written statement to avoid waiver. Additionally, acceptance of rent after the notice does not automatically constitute waiver, and there must be clear evidence of the landlord's intention to treat the lease as subsisting.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as the Code) has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 & 20.12.2019 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Rourkela in RFA No.11 of 2017.

2. By the same, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Jude (Sr. Division), Rourkela in C.S. No.122 of 2014 have been confirmed.

Accordingly, the Suit filed by the Appellant as the Plaintiff has been dismissed and the counter claim lodged by the Respondents being the Defendants therein has been allowed. Thus, the Appellant has been denied with the relief of being entitled to remain in physical possession of the suit premises/property and his prayer for issuance of permanent injunction against the Respondents has been declined; whereas the counter claim filed by the Respondents has been allowed, directing the eviction of the Appellant from the suit premises/property.

3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

4. The Plaintiffs case is that one Basudev Khemani who happens to be the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendant No.2 had inducted him as tenant in respect of the part of the suit premises way back in the year, 2003. An agreement to that effect had come into being on 31.01.2003. It was for a period of five years w.e.f. 1st day of January, 2003. For the said occupation, the Plaintiff was paying Rs.1,200/- with the mode of payment as half yearly rent at a time in advance. The Plaintiff had further undertaken to pay the electricity charges as per actual consumption. It is sated that in course of time, the Plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in respect of all the six rooms in the said building and although he was paying more rent, that was shown as Rs.1,200/- per month as per the request of the landlord. The Plaintiff in the said tenanted premises has been carrying out the activities relating to the Offset Printing Press under the name and style of M/s. B.S. Arts Press which had its due registration with District Industry Centre (DIC) as also Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). It has also its registration with the Government of Odisha to carry on said business. The Plaintiff has taken the telephone connection and has been paying the license fee to the Municipality for carrying out all said activities.

It is his case that on expiry of the period of agreement, fresh agreement had been entered into with Defendant No.1 on 01.04.2010 and then the monthly rent had been enhanced to Rs.1,500/- per month. The said agreement was again for the period of five years w.e.f. that date with the mode of payment as half yearly rent together in advanced with further condition that every year, the monthly rent would be enhanced by five per centum (5%). The Plaintiff claims to have been regularly paying the rent to the Defendant No.1.

It is stated that on 18.06.2014, the Defendants asked the Plaintiff to vacate the suit premises and gave a deadline of seven days for the same, otherwise to face forcefully dispossession. The Plaintiffs request that at least the period fixed under the agreement be adhered to was not paid any heed to. The Defendants also did not listen to the request of the Plaintiff for his continuance in occupation of the tenanted premises till arrangement of an alternative accommodation. When all such attempts to convince the Defendants failed, the Plaintiff filed the Suit claiming the relief that he be allowed to remain in possession of the suit premises till April, 2015 or his eviction following due process of law.

5. The Defendants denied the assertion of the Plaintiff that he was paying more monthly rent but as per the oral request of Basudev was showing less. It is stated that on 12.04.2014, they had sent the notice under Section-106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the Plaintiff termi