IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a month-to-month lease can be terminated by a 30-day notice, rejecting claims of an annual lease due to lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Saud Rais, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nirmit Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No. 48 of 2017 (old number 218 of 2014), whereby the Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages filed by opposite parties against the petitioner was decreed. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment and order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court no. 9, Lucknow whereby SCC Revision No. 41 of 2017, filed against the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2024, has been dismissed.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the opposite parties had filed the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages pleading that they are co-owners/landlords of the land with building bearing municipal no. 352/2, Tulsidas Marg, Manjeet Singh Building Campus, New C-Block, Raja Ji Puram, Lucknow, having an area of 6390.65 Square Feet which is bounded as below :

East: Tulsidas Marg

West: Vacant land of the plaintiffs and thereafter warehouses

North: Land of the plaintiffs and thereafter Talkatora Power House

South: Office of Senior Marketing Inspector (Food Department) and vacant land of the plaintiffs. The petitioner was using the tenanted premises as a factory and Godown and the monthly rent payable by the petitioner was Rs3,569/- per month.

4. It was further pleaded that initially the property in question was let out to the defendant as a single unit but on the request of the proprietor of the petitioner, the tenancy was bifurcated with one portion remained in the tenancy of M/s Arun Enterprises with its proprietor Sri Arun Mansukhani and the other portion fell in the tenancy of M/s. M.K. Enterprises with its new proprietor Smt. Meera Kumar (mother-in-law of Sri Arun Mansukhani). However, both the proprietorship concerns continued to be managed by Sri. Arun Mansukhani and both the concerns carry on business as a single unit. It was alleged that the tenant defaulted in payment of rent since 01.07.2014. The plaintiffs sent a notice dated 09.10.2014 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act stating that the tenancy would stand determined upon expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

5. The petitioner filed a written statement of its defence stating that the tenanted premises is being used for manufacturing goods. The petitioner denied having committed any default in payment of rent and stated that the entire rent had been paid to the landlords.

6. The plaintiffs has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of a lease agreement dated 30.07.1980 executed between Satender Jeet Singh – the predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, and Sri Arun Mansukhani, proprietor of M/s Arun Enterprises, wherein it was written that the petitioner had taken a Godown measuring 530 Square Feet in premises No. 532/2, Talkatora Road, Lucknow for a period of 3 years, on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The tenant had a right of renewal of lease after every 3 years enhancing the rent upto 10%. Clause 2 of the aforesaid agreement provides that the tenancy shall begin from the first day of every month of the Gregorian calendar terminating with the last day of every month and the monthly rent shall fall due on the first day of each month. The petitioner had filed this lease agreement before the trial Court also.

7. The Judge Small Causes Court has decreed the Suit by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2024 wherein the following four points for determination were framed: -

i. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant.

ii. Whether the notice sent by the plaintiffs was duly se