The lease agreement's termination under the Transfer of Property Act was valid, allowing for eviction despite the defendant's claims of a fixed-term lease.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the defendant assailing the ejectment order passed in O.S.No.3530/2024.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff claims to have leased out the suit premises, Flat No. A-1401, to the defendant under a rental agreement dated 21.08.2023, for a fixed term of 11 months commencing from 19.08.2023. The plaintiff acknowledges having delivered possession of the flat to the defendant. As per the agreement, the defendant was required to pay monthly rent on or before the 19^th of each calendar month. The plaintiff refers to Clause 15 of the rental agreement, which confers upon both parties the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing one month’s prior written notice. The plaintiff contends that he intended to sell the suit property and, in this regard, requested the defendant to cooperate in facilitating inspection by prospective buyers. Subsequently, by communication dated 16.02.2024, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to vacate the premises. Despite reminders, the defendant failed to respond, compelling the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 07.03.2024, thereby terminating the lease with effect from 09.04.2024, in accordance with Clause 15. The plaintiff alleges that despite termination, the defendant failed to vacate, leaving him with no alternative but to initiate an ejectment suit.

4. Upon receipt of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement. He contended that he has two children. His daughter pursuing her third-year law degree at Dayananda Sagar University and his son enrolled in a B.E. course at R.V.

College of Engineering and therefore required accommodation in proximity to their educational institutions. The defendant asserted that the lease was for a fixed term of 11 months commencing from 19.08.2023 and was subject to renewal. It was his case that the plaintiff could not have prematurely terminated the lease in the absence of any default in payment of rent. He further stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as an interest-free security deposit and was regularly paying a monthly rent of Rs.53,000/-, along with Rs.7,000/- towards maintenance. According to the defendant, the lease contained a lock-in period and therefore could not be terminated unilaterally by the plaintiff before the expiry of the lease term.

5. Both parties were afforded an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court, having framed relevant issues, recorded evidence accordingly. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and produced 12 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-12. The defendant, apart from tendering oral evidence, did not produce any documentary evidence in rebuttal.

6. Upon assessment of the material on record, the Trial Court answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that the tenancy stood validly terminated by issuance of a quit notice dated 07.03.2024, as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882. Consequently, the Trial Court directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff was further awarded mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per day from the date of filing the suit until actual delivery of possession.

7. Heard learned counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff, who appeared in person. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the rental agreement dated 21.08.2023 was for a fixed duration of 11 months, and during the subsistence of the lease, in the absence of any default, the plaintiff was not entitled to prematurely