Prakash Krishna, J.-

This is plaintiff-landlady's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. It arises out of SCC Suit No. 31 of 2001 which has been dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 6th January, 2007.

2. The dispute relates to 79, Tagore Town, Allahabad of which the plaintiff is admittedly owner and landlady. She let it out on monthly rent of Rs.2100/- under rent agreement to the defendant-tenant opposite party herein, for a period of-five years i.e. 01.06.1985 to 31.05.1990. It appears that the defendant-tenant continued to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.2100/- per month, even after expiry of the aforesaid period. Thereafter, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant-tenant and filed suit giving rise to the present revision. Eviction was sought for on the groun that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as there is above Rs.2000/- per month and secondly, the defendant-tenant ha disfigured the building by raising constructions.

3. The trial court has found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable but since there was renewal clause in the agreement between the parties and there being no renewed lease, it would be presumed that the defendant-tenant continues to be tenant on the old terms and conditions. This being so, the tenant being not a defaulter in terms of lease agreement, is not liable for eviction. It was further found that the defendant-tenant has not disfigured the building.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the findini recorded by the court below on the question of disfigurement of the building.] The applicant has challenged the finding in the present revision, recorded] by the trial court on issue no. 1 only.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Certain facts are not in dispute. It is in dispute that the building was I out to the defendant-tenant under rent agreement for a period of five yean commencing 01.06.1985 to 31.05.1990. It is also not in dispute that after expiry of the aforesaid period, lease or rent agreement has not been renewed nor any other lease document has been executed between the parties.

7. In the aforesaid agreement, there was a clause to the effect that the defendant-tenant would not be liable to be evicted, if it is in arrears of rent not than for three months. The trial court has held that since the defendant tenant is not in arrears of more than three months and there is no other agreement between the parties, the relief for eviction cannot be granted.

8. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act provides effect of holding over. It provides for the situation under which, despite determination of lease, if the lessee continues in possession a new lease may come into existence. For application of this section, two things are necessary:

(1) The lessee should be in possession after the termination of the lease.

(2) Lessor or his representative should accept the rent or otherwise assents, to his continuing in possession.

[LCD Smt. Santosh Kumar Anand v. U.P.P. Corp. (Prakash Krishna, J.) 585

9. It has been held that after expiry of original lease, a new lease by operation of law comes into existence as per Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The rights of the parties are governed under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been held that after expiry of the lease where the landlord, after the expiry of the lease, accepted rent at the old rate for a number of years, he cannot be allowed to charge rent at the enhanced rent provided in the penal clause of the earlier lease vide Usto Ahmedoo v. Abdul Rehman Darzi. AIR 1977 J&K 79. The tenant paying the rent after expiry of the lease period and remaining in operation is called tenant by holding over. A new tenancy by way of holding over is created by implication under law. In other words, the old terms of tenancy seizes (sic-ceases) after expiry of the lease.

10. On a careful

Click Here to Read the rest of this document