Point of law: Small Causes Court - Termination of tenancy - Intention of parties to create lease - Lease clearly provided for extension only for the period of 5 years further refusal to remove temporary constructions then as per the covenants of lease, same vested with landlord hence not permanent lease

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Barabanki in SCC Suit No. 3 of 2007 by means of which the SCC Suit No. 3 of 2007 seeking arrears of rent and ejectment preferred by the plaintiff-respondents has been decreed and the defendant-revisionist has been directed to handover the possession of the property in question within three months to the plaintiff/landlord.

2. The revisionist-tenant has assailed the judgment dated 03.09.2012 primarily on two grounds.

(i) It has been urged by Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist that the lease which was granted was of a permanent nature and it was not open for the landlord/respondent to terminate the said tenancy. The lease being permanent was not capable of termination and this aspect of the matter has not been considered in the correct perspective and has been decided against the weight of the material on record.

(ii) The other submission of Sri Chandra is that the landlord had leased out an open piece of land. That being so in view of Section 15 of the Act of 1887 read with Article 4 as appended to the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, the suit was not maintainable before the Judge, Small Causes and the decree passed by the Court being wholly without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra, Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the landlord/respondent submits that the lease was though of an open piece of land but the covenants of the lease clearly provided that the tenant could only raise temporary constructions and upon termination of the lease or upon expiry of its term the tenant would have 3 month's time to remove the same, in case if he fails to do so, the said constructions would vest with the landlord and in such a case where the landlord seeks eviction from the land and building, hence, such a suit would be cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes.

4. It is further urged that the lease which was executed on 13.04.2000 comprised of both land and temporary construction and thus when the lease expired, even at the time of issue of notice and as also at the time of filing of the suit the eviction was sought from both land and building, hence, the suit was filed before Judge Small Cause and this has been adequately considered by the court below.

5. It has also been urged that the lease was not permanent and the submission to the contrary is misconceived, inasmuch as, the lease deed clearly indicated the term to be 5 years and upon the expiry of the aforesaid term, the tenant was required to vacate. There is no covenant nor there is any material to indicate either by intention or by any deed that the parties ever contemplated creating a perpetual lease. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Trial Court and has been negatived, consequently, only to harass the landlord, the instant revision has been preferred which deserves to be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of (i) M/s Kedarnath Baijnath and Others Vs. Sri Ram Chandra Ji, Sri Jankiji, Sri Lakshman Ji, Virajman Mandir and Others reported 1991 ARC page 420 (ii) C.Albert Morris Vs. K. Chandrasekaran and Others reported in 2006 (1) SCC 228, (iii) Santosh Kumari Anand Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Vidyut Transmission Khand Thru. Exe. Engg. reported in 2012 (2) ARC 420, (iv) Smt. Mehroon Nisha Vs. Allah Tala Waqf No. 232 Masjid Akhoon Zada Shahib, Bareilly reported in 2009 ACJ 183 and (v) Govardhan Goyal and Others Vs. Rishi Raj Singhal reported in 2013 (9) ADJ 138..

7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, certain facts giving rise to the instant revision are being noticed first:-

8.That the landlord-respondent instituted a suit bearing SCC Suit No. 3 of 2007 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.