A lessor cannot order the eviction of a lessee based on the forfeiture of a lease under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, unless the lease agreement contains an express covenant stipulating a right of re-entry upon a breach of condition.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellants/appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 and Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel for respondent No.1/respondent No.1/plaintiff. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2023 in A.S.No.67 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Jangaon (for short ‘the First Appellate Court”) confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 05.10.2021 in O.S.No.120 of 2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, the suit filed by respondent No1/plaintiff seeking eviction, arrears of rent and the damages has been decreed directing the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 to vacate the suit schedule property consisting of premises admeasuring 1800 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.546 of Palakurthy Revenue Village and Mandal of Warangal District.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the suit i.e. Respondent No.1 is referred as plaintiff, the appellants are referred as defendant Nos.1 and 3 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are referred as defendant Nos.2 and 4.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner of land to an extent of 2420 Sq.Yds., having purchased under a registered sale deed document No.313 of 2004 dated 02.07.2004 and said land is abutting the 100 feet road leading from Palakurthy Village to Station Ghanpur, near Someshwara Swami Temple. The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff to lease land to an extent of 1,800 Sq.Yds. for the purpose of running a petrol pump of defendant No.2 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Under a lease agreement dated 29.04.2005, wherein the term of lease was to be for 30 years, the rent was agreed at Rs.7,500/- per month payable on every first week of the month and there was an oral agreement for enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% on the existing rent once in every 5 years. The payment of rents was through internet banking. The case of plaintiff is that there was default in payment of rent following irregular payment of rent followed by breach of rental agreement on account of subletting the suit schedule property to defendant No.3, followed by changing of the ownership of the petrol pump from a proprietary concern to a partnership along with defendant No.4. In view of irregular payment of rent, default in payment of rent and breach of rental agreement, the plaintiff got legal notice issued and when there was no response from defendant No.1, a suit for eviction and other incidental reliefs has been filed.

5. The defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 have filed written statements and contested the suit whereas the defendant No.2 remained ex-parte.

6. The case of defendant No.1 is that there is no irregularity in payment of rent or default in payment of rent. Further, there is no issue of subletting or entering into a partnership with defendant No.4. In fact excess rent of Rs.8,560/- is paid. There is no subletting as the defendant No. 3 is GPA holder of the defendant No.1. He is running the business of defendant No.1 as an agent but not in his individual capacity. Further, defendant No.1 denied entering into partnership with defendant No.4 with 75% and 25% share holding. The suit is claimed to be devoid of cause of action, barred by limitation, and the court fee paid is insufficient.

7. The defendant No.3 filed written statement supporting the case of defendant No.1, a