A fixed-term lease requiring mutual agreement on rent for renewal terminates by efflux of time if such agreement is not reached. Appellate intervention is mandatory when a lower court interprets such contractual conditions perversely, misreading the documents governing the parties' legal relationship.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. This Civil Revision Application is filed by original Plaintiffs/lessors against lessee/original Defendant under provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short). It challenges the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.2010 passed by the District Judge – 10, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 576 of 2008, by which the appeal filed by the Respondent/Defendant was allowed and Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2008 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune (on Deputation 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune) in Civil Suit No. 653 of 2001, was set aside. The Trial Court had decreed the suit directing the Respondent to vacate the suit premises. This eviction decree is set aside by the Appellate Court.

2. Land beneath the structure constructed on plot No. 8 from sanctioned layout of Survey No. 46/2 and 46-B/1 in TPS No.3,, Parvati admeasuring about 10673 sq. ft. equivalent to 991.99 sq. mtrs situated within the limits of the Sub-Registrar, Taluka – Haveli, District Pune and within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, Parvati is the subject matter property and the same is hereinafter referred to as ‘suit premises’.

3. The Revision Applicants filed the said suit, contending inter alia as under.

3.1. That suit premises was owned by Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Shri Shankarrao Morappa Gadve, who in the capacity of Karta/Manager of HUF, executed a registered lease deed dated 14.04.1966 in favour of ‘Raja Steel Industries’ (‘the original lessee’ for short). According to the terms and conditions of the said lease deed, the period of lease was to be 35 years and agreed rent was Rs.150/- per month. During the period of lease, the lessee was permitted to erect structure on the suit premises at his own cost and use and occupy the same.

3.2. That it was agreed that if lessee wants to extend the period of lease for further 35 years, the lessee was to communicate to the lessor in writing, at least 3 months in advance and rent for extended period was to be decided mutually.

3.3. That it was agreed that after expiry of the lease period, the lessee would remove/demolish the structure and would deliver vacant physical possession of suit premises to the lessor.The period of lease expired on 13.04.2001.

3.4. That during subsistence of the lease, the original lessee executed a registered Deed of Assignment dated 06.05.1994 and assigned its rights, title and interest in the suit premises in favour of the present Respondent. By virtue of said Assignment Deed, the Respondent stepped into the shoes of original lessee and is therefore bound by the terms and conditions therein.

3.5. That in December 2000, the Respondent addressed a letter to Revision Applicants intimating that he wants to get the lease extended; however, at the time of receipt of said letter, the Revision Applicants were not aware of the transaction between original lessee and Respondent. Therefore, Revision Applicants addressed a letter to the Respondent calling upon him to supply copy of the document between original lessee and Respondent. Accordingly, a copy was sen