A lease can only be terminated by surrender to the lessor, and oral evidence is not admissible to prove rescission of a registered lease deed.

V.K.BALI, J.

1. This order will dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 1125 and 1126 of 1983, as common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals.

2. The only question posed for decision is with regard to liability to pay the rent and damages of shop-cum-flat No. 13 in Sector 22D, Chandigarh between appellants Jatinder Kumar and Ramesh Kumar and defendant-respondent Govardhan Lal Kapur.

3. Facts, in brief reveal that plaintiff purchased shop-cum-flat No. 13 Sector 22 on 19-12-1963. Admittedly, the aforesaid premises were taken on rent initially by Jatinder Kumar and Ramesh Kumar with effect from 1/01/1964, vide lease deed dated 19/12/1963. The said defendants were already in possession of the property and were carrying on business under the name and style of Adam and Eve. The plaintiffs, served notice dated 7/12/1968, terminating their tenancy with effect from 1/01/1969. It was clarified in the notice that in case they do not vacate the premises by the date stipulated, they will be charged double the rate of the runt as damages for their use and occupation. It was also stated that in any case, the lease of the premises in question being only for five years, the same was otherwise also to expire by afflux of time, by 31/12/1968. The defendants did not comply with directions as contained in the notice. This constrained the plaintiffs to institute a suit for recovery of Rs. 28,800.00, as damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of the shop-cum-flat from 1-1-1969 to 31-12-1969, at the rate of Rs. 2,400.00 per month, as also recovery of damages from 1-1-1970 up to such time the defendants were to handover the vacant possession or actually evicted from the premises in question, again, at the rate of Rs. 2400.00- per month. Defendants Nos. I and 2, who are appellants in two separate appeals filed written statement and contested the matter. The original lease in their favour was admitted but it was pleaded that on account of disruption in the family business, defendant No. 3 Goverdhan Lal Kapur had taken over the business in the latter part of December, 1965 and Mahan Singh attorney of the plaintiffs recognised the tenancy of the said defendants with effect from 1/10/1965. Defendant No. 3 as well contested the suit, pleading that the partnership firm Adam and Eve handed over the possession in October, 1965 to him as sole proprietor of the said concern and he took the premises on rent from Mahan Singh on monthly rent of Rs. 1000 / - which was later on increased to Rs. 1200, - per month. He admitted the receipt of notice dated 7/12/1968 but pleaded that the same was illegal. He also contested the matter on the plea that the attorney of the plaintiffs had waived the notice by accepting the rent after December, 1968.

4. The pleadings of the parties as noticed in brief resulted in the issues as reproduced by the trial Court at page 2 of the judgment and inasmuch as the controversy in the present appeals centres around liability of the defendants inter se to pay the rent or damages as the case may be, it is only relevant issues which deserve to be noticed.

5. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 occupied the premises in suit as tenants under the plaintiffs up to 31-12-1968? OPP

6. Whether the original lease deed stood terminated by the consent and conduct of the parties and a new tenancy with defendant No. 3 came into existence with effect from 1-10-1965? OPD

7. Does defendant No. 3 occupy the premises in suit as tenant under Mahan Singh and not under the plaintiffs? OPD-3. 5. In as much as, the aforesaid issues were inter-linked, the same were rightly discussed together by the trial Court. The findings, however, on the said issues was that it is defendant No. 3 Goverdhan Lal Kapur who was to pay the amount of Rs.78,000.00 as damages at the rate of Rs. 2,400.00 per month for the period 1-1-1969 to 15-9-1971. Suit against the appellants i.e. defendants 1 and 2 was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. Aggrieved