Automatic renewal clause in lease deed does not override Section 107 TPA requiring registered instrument for leases exceeding one year; non-compliance results in month-to-month tenancy terminable by notice, despite contractual terms.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ishtiyaq Khan seeks leave of the Court to place his authority on record; but, considering the procedural aspects, being followed by the Registry of this Court, his authority cannot be accepted by this Court during the Court proceedings. It has to be filed before the Registry of this Court itself. Hence, while proceeding with the dictation of judgement, simultaneously, the Registry is also directed to accept the vakalatnama of Mr. Ishtiyaq Khan as counsel for the plaintiff/respondent.

2. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants, wherein they have challenged the judgement and decree dated 29^th March 2017, as rendered by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as rendered in Original Suit No. 46 of 2013, Raj Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation, as well as, the judgement dated 26^th September 2018, as rendered by the First Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2017, Indian Oil Corporation v. Raj Kumar, whereby the judgement of the learned trial Court has been concurrently confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, with the dismissal of the First Appeal of the defendant/appellant. Ultimately, the suit of plaintiff/respondent for ejectment and recovery of possession and damages stood decreed for the nature of relief claimed therein it the Suit.

3. The present Second Appeal came up for consideration before this Court at an admission stage and the same was agreed by the counsel, for the parties to be argued finally at an admission stage itself. In order to deal with the intricacies of the matter, it becomes essential for this Court to precisely deal with the respective case of the parties to the Second Appeal, as it was agitated and pleaded by them before the Courts below.

4. The fact of the matter as involved in the case are that on 6^th April 2013, the plaintiff (respondent herein) had instituted a Suit, wherein he has sought a decree in the nature of a decree of ejectment and recovery of possession of the property, more particularly described in para 1 of the plaint, which was constituting to be a land measuring 110 x 115 square ft. situated in Village Haldia, Tehsil Kichha, now in District Udham Singh Nagar, which was let out to the defendants/appellants by the plaintiff/respondent by virtue of a registered Lease Deed, as executed on 25^th August 1973. The relief as modulated in the plaint by the plaintiff/respondent was to the following effect:-

“14. That the plaintiff therefore prays:-

(a) That passing a decree for ejectment and recovery of possession of the below bounded land in question measuring 110x150ft. situated at Village – Bandia, Tehsil-Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the defendant be directed to restore actual peaceful possession over the same land in question in an absolutely vacant state after removing their entire installations, fittings, fixtures and struc