IMPORTANT POINT
Month to month tenancy does not come to an end by efflux of time.

Arun Bhansali, J.—This appeal under Section 96 CPC by the appellant-tenant is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.03.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Abu Road (Sirohi), whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the appellant from the suit shop has been decreed.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi filed a suit for eviction, recovery of rent and damages against the defendant-appellant with the averments that a shop situated at Sadar Bazar, Mount Abu has been in tenancy of the defendant with rent @ Rs.5,500/- per month under registered lease agreement dated 29.08.2002; the tenancy is monthly and starts from 09th of the month and terminates on 08th of the next month; the lease dated 29.08.2002 came to an end on 09.08.2007 and as per lease agreement the defendant was required to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop, however, despite requests the suit shop has not been vacated and, therefore, the suit was being filed; though as the period of lease has come to an end, there is no requirement to give legal notice, however, keeping in view the convenience of the defendant a notice dated 19.12.2007 through counsel by registered A.D. was sent to the defendant terminating tenancy w.e.f. 08.02.2008, which was returned with the remark ‘refused’ and despite the period of notice coming to an end on 08.02.2008, the suit shop has not been vacated; the tenant has paid rent upto 08.10.2007; plaintiff is entitled for outstanding rent for four months @ Rs.5,500/- i.e. Rs.22,000/- and thereafter for unauthorized occupation the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.5,500/- per month. It was prayed that the possession of the suit shop be handed over to the plaintiff and a decree for a sum of Rs.22,000/- be passed in her favour alongwith future damages @ Rs.5,500/- per month.

3. A written statement was filed by the appellant-defendant, inter alia, submitting that the defendant by depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- took the suit shop on lease w.e.f. 09.08.1996 under lease agreement dated 09.08.1996; the tenancy was yearly, the annual rent was Rs.66,000/-; at the time of letting out the shop, it was agreed that the suit shop will not be got vacated; the lease agreement dated 29.08.2002 was executed under pressure from the plaintiff, which is not binding on the defendant, but the plaintiff is bound by the said agreement; the plaintiff has extended the lease period by five years w.e.f. 10.08.2007; the refusal of notice was denied; rent upto 08.07.2008 has been paid; the suit was premature; the notice dated 09.12.2007 has been waived as the rent has been received; in additional pleas it was, inter alia, claimed that the State Government had imposed restriction on registration of any document as declaration of Mount Abu as Wild Life Sanctuary was in contemplation and, therefore, the plaintiff had on 10.08.2007 executed a slip extending the tenancy for five years and had received rent till 08.10.2007 personally and on 09.10.2007 as per instructions of the plaintiff, the rent was deposited till 08.07.2008; it was claimed that as per lease agreements dated 09.08.1996, 07.09.1999 and 29.08.2002 the plaintiff was required to give a six months’ notice and as the six months’ notice was not given, the notice dated 19.12.2007 was void and the suit was liable to be dismissed. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

A replication was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, indicating that the plea regarding extension of tenancy for a period of five years on 10.08.2007 was incorrect and false; the defendant has prepared a fraudulent document; the rent upto 08.07.2008 has not been paid as per instructions of the plaintiff and the amount in her bank account has been deposited without her instructions.

After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed six issues, which read as under:-

(Vernacular Matter Omitted —Editor)

4. On behalf of the plaint