A tenant by holding over whose tenancy is renewed from month to month under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, can be evicted by a month's notice under Section 106 of the Act.

D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against judgment and decree dated 30-5-1997 of IIIrd Addl. District Judge (JSCC) Aligarh, decreeing the suit of the landlord opposite party for eviction of the tenant-revisionist from the disputed accommodation.

( 2 ) THE disputed premises situate at Sadabad Gate Hathras was-in tenancy of the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 4285. 00. Since monthly rent of this premises exceeded Rs. 2000. 00 per month, the plaintiff claiming exemption of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed a suit for eviction after serving a registered notice dated 4-9-1995 of ejectment under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The notice was served on 5-9-1995. Since the notice remained uncomplied with and possession of the premises was not delivered, the suit for eviction was filed.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested on the ground that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the premises in question. It was admitted that after periodical enhancement of the rent the rent was lastly agreed to be paid at the rate of Rs. 4285. 00 per month in pursuance of the order passed by the prescribed Authority under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972. The validity of the notice of eviction was challenged on the ground that initially the tenancy was created for five years under a written lease-deed. In the said deed an option was given to the tenant for renewal for three years at an interval of one year each. However, neither the right of renewal was exercised by the tenant nor tenancy was determined by the landlord and since the landlord accepted the rent and permitted the revisionist to remain in occupation, the notice of eviction is invalid.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit.

( 5 ) THE finding of the trial Court that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the premises in question was not challenged by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionist, however, challenged the finding of the trial Court regarding status of the revisionist and invalidity of the notice. The learned counsel for the respondents also appeared and he was heard. The revision is, therefore, being disposed of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) THE only short point for adjudication in this revision is whether the status of the revisionist after expiry of the period of lease will be that of a tenant by holding over or a tenancy at will or the tenancy has been forfeited. The learned counselfor the revisionist stated that on the facts and circumstances of the case the status of the revisionist was that of a tenant by holding over.

( 7 ) FOR appreciating this, certain facts have to be kept in mind. The tenancy was created under a written deed for five years from 15-1-1959 to 15-1-1964. There was covenant in this lease deed that the tenant will have three options for a period of one year each to extend the tenancy with certain requirements, namely, after service of thirty days prior notice this right of renewal shall be exercised by the tenant. Admittedly the revisionist did not exercise the right of renewal nor any notice to exercise this right was given to the landlord. However, it is equally admitted case that after 16-1-1964 till the notice of eviction which was served on 5-9-1995 the tenant remained in occupation of the premises and that he had been paying rent to the landlord and the landlord always accepted the same. On these facts it was contended that the tenancy of the revisionist could not be terminated by one months notice at the will of the landlord and that it was an yearly lease, hence, six months notice for its termination was needed. In this view of the matter notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was argued to be illegal.

( 8 ) SECTION 116 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:"effect of holding over:- If a lessee or under less

Click Here to Read the rest of this document