The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the lower Appellate Court to adequately consider the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the applicability of relevant legal provisions in eviction suits.

JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure arises out of judgment and decree dated 21.12.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.91 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No.99 of 2017 arising out of judgment and decree dated 22.8.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No.382 of 2007.

2. The facts in nutshell is that plaintiff-respondent, which is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”) having its registered office at 8/21, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, purchased property No.97, Cantt. The Mall, Kanpur Nagar through registered sale deed on 08.9.1993 from one Murrey & Company. The said premises was let out on 25.5.1964 for a period of five years by Murrey & Company Pvt. Ltd. to the defendant-appellant and it consist of showroom measuring 1740 Sq.ft., Store Room 82 Sq.ft., one room 813 Sq.ft., Drawing Room 1084 Sq.ft., a godown 1660 sq.ft., and a washroom 145 sq.ft., total area 6134 sq.ft. The monthly rent being Rs.3,818.75 along with 5% house tax and 6% water tax, total amount Rs.4,248.36.

3. According to the plaint, the tenancy of the appellant was terminated by notice dated 25.01.2007. When the premises in question was not vacated within 30 days of the date of service of notice, Original Suit No.382 of 2007 was filed for eviction. The defendant also contested the suit and filed written statement and stated that the plaintiff had not submitted and filed any documentary evidence in support of his ownership. It was also stated that another litigation was pending against the appellant initiated by the plaintiff wherein eviction has been stayed by this Court. The Trial Court framed following issues :

^^1- D;k edku uEcj 97 dSaV dkuiqj ls oknh çfroknh dks csn[ky dj mldk dCtk çkIr djus dk gdnkj gS \
2- D;k oknh us okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k gS ,oa çnŸk U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\
3- D;k nkok oknh vkns'k 7 fu;e 3 lhå ihå lhå ls ckf/kr gS\
4- D;k oknh fdlh vU; vuqrks"k dks çkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

4. Issue No.1 was in regard to whether the plaintiff had right to evict the defendant from the premises No.97, Cantt. Kanpur. The Trial Court found that the lease, which was executed in May, 1964 in favour of the appellant, was only for a period of five years and after expiry of the time as the lease deed was not extended, the defendant continued as a licensee and after termination of tenancy by notice dated 25.01.2007, the defendant had no right over the property which measured 1740 sq.ft.

5. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 22.8.2017. Against the said judgment, two civil appeals were preferred, one being Civil Appeal No.91 of 2017 by the plaintiff-respondent and another Civil Appeal No.99 of 2017 by the present appellant. The lower Appellate Court framed following points of determination :

^^1- D;k fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; dk okn ewY;kadu dj oknh dks vkaf'kd :i ls vkKfIr fd;s tkus fo"k;d vkns'k lgh ugha Fkk rFkk D;k okn oknh iw.kZ :i ls vkKfIr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\
2- D;k çfroknh@çR;qŸkjnkrk ds dFkukuqlkj flfoy U;k;ky; ds okn fopkj.k gsrq {ks=kf/kdkj ugha Fkk\
3- D;k okn fof/kd :i ls iks"k.kh; gS\**

6. Point No.2 was in regard to the fact whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The lower Appellant Court recorded finding that as the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff before the Judge Small Causes Court, which was decreed against the appellant and revision is pending, was for arrears of rent and ejectment while the present suit was filed for eviction. On the basis of the said finding, the lower Appellant Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2020 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in entirety by allowing the appeal of the respondent and dismissing the appeal of the defendant-appellant hence the present appeal.

7. Through this appeal, following substantial questions of law has been raised, which are as under :

(i) Whether th