1985 (9) TMI 358 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Extension of the lease deed dated 1st Feb. 1955 for a period of 25 years.
3. Entitlement of the defendant to the benefit of such extension.
4. Entitlement of the plaintiff to a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit property and for damages.
5. Reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The trial court found the suit maintainable as the issue was not pressed during the trial. The court observed that the suit was in proper form and there was no defect in the same.

2. Extension of the Lease Deed:
The lease deed dated 1st Feb. 1955, granted for 25 years, expired on 31st Jan. 1980. The plaintiffs argued that the lease was not extended as the defendants failed to exercise the renewal option per Clause 10 of the lease. The defendants claimed that they had exercised the renewal option through a letter dated 9th Oct. 1979 (Ext. 3), but the court found this letter insufficient as it did not comply with all the terms of Clause 10, particularly regarding payment of mesne profits and addressing the proper authority.

3. Entitlement of the Defendant to the Benefit of Extension:
The court held that the defendants were not entitled to the extension of the lease. The defendants' argument that the lease was automatically renewed under Sections 5 and 7 of the ESSO (Acquisitions of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974, was rejected. The court found no evidence that the flat was used for business purposes of ESSO in India, which was necessary for the application of the said Act. The flat was used for residential purposes for the officers of the defendants, which did not meet the criteria of "appertaining to the business carried on by ESSO in India."

4. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to a Decree for Recovery of Khas Possession and Damages:
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them recovery of khas possession and damages. It was observed that the lease had expired and was not duly renewed. The defendants' continued occupation was deemed unauthorized.

5. Reliefs to which the Plaintiff is Entitled:
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them the reliefs sought, including recovery of possession and damages. The defendants were not entitled to any protection against eviction as they failed to properly exercise the renewal option and their occupation was unauthorized post-expiry of the lease.

Additional Considerations:
- Automatic Renewal Argument: The defendants' claim of automatic renewal under the ESSO Act was dismissed. The court emphasized that any renewal had to be explicitly requested and properly executed, which was not done in this case.
- Addressing Proper Authority: The court noted that the renewal request (Ext. 3) was addressed to a minor who had no authority to grant the renewal, further invalidating the defendants' claim.
- Additional Evidence: An application to admit additional evidence (two letters) was allowed, as it was found necessary for a just determination of the case and did not prejudice the defendants.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was upheld. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the property and damages, while the defendants' claims for lease renewal and protection against eviction were rejected.