The lease of immovable property determines by efflux of time under section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, and no notice is required for termination of tenancy if the tenancy is for a fixed period.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1989 passed by Sri S. K. Mishra the then District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal No. 11/1988 dismissing the appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 25-9-1988 passed by Sri D. P Garola in Civil Suit No. 1/1986 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for possession and ejectment of the appel lants/defendant from the disputed shop on the ground that premises were given to one-Pratap Singh (defendant) on rent @ Rs. 300/- per month for the fixed period of five years w. e. f. 01-07-1980 by virtue of a lease deed dated 01-07-1980. The electric and water charges had to be paid by the tenant in addition to the rent. After taking the shop on rent, Pratap Singh joined the services in GRIEF (B. R. O.) and sub-let the said shop to Dinesh Chandra Khanna. But, after expiry of the lease deed of five years Pratap Singh did not vacate the shop. Thereafter, the plain tiff/respondent filed a suit against Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh died during the pendency of the suit. The suit was contested by the legal representatives of Pratap Singh and it was alleged in the written statement that it was not agreed in the agreement deed that if the de fendant No. 1 - Pratap Singh would be re-employed, he would have to vacate the shop. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 Pratap Singh was never re-employed and due to his illness he had obtained the services of defendant No. 2-Dinesh Chandra Khanna and he was employed as a manager to look after the said shop. Pratap Singh did not sub-let it to Dinesh Chandra Khanna. The defendant has also pleaded that as per the agreement he used to pay the rent to the plaintiffs chaukidar and the chaukidar used to take it only after two - three months. When plaintiff refused to take the said rent, the rent was sent through money order which was also refused by the plaintiff. It was also alleged in the writ ten statement that Pratap Singh applied for extension of term of the tenancy period, but it was not extended and as such the tenancy was determined by notice. It was further pleaded that three months prior notice was not given to the defendant before vacation of shop.

3. The learned Munsif framed the necessary issues in the said suit. After framing the issues and after apprecia tion of evidence, the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by this, the defend ant/appellants preferred an appeal be fore the District Judge and the learned District Judge maintained the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Both-the courts below had held that the plaintiff/respondent adduced the

evi dence of PW1-Jag Mohan Singh, who has stated before the court that the tenancy deed was executed for a period of five years. Both the courts below relied upon the evidence of the plaintiff. The trial court has further held that the defendant also sent a letter to the plain tiff on 13-6-1985 to extend the lease deed for further period of five years from the date of expiry of earlier deed. The said request of the defendant/ap pellant was rejected by the plaintiff/re spondent on 19-6-1995. Both the courts below had relied upon the said agreement in which it was admitted that the tenancy was only for a fixed period of five years. Both the courts below had also held that the agreement was executed in between the parties, which clearly reveals that the tenancy deed was executed for a period of five years. The learned trial court as well as the appellate court had also held that the said building was sub-let to Dinesh Chandra Khanna. Both the courts be low had relied upon the evidence of the plaintiff and had also relied upon the written reply of the notice sent by Dinesh Chandra Khanna in which he has stated as follows :

@ HINDi

4. The averments made in the said notice clearly reveal that the said shop was sub-let to Dinesh Chandra Khanna. The learned court below had also re lied upon the evidence of pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document