Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
7. Reiterating the findings of the High Court and the trial court, c the learned counsel for respondents-tenants submitted that the courts below recorded concurrent findings that every possible step was taken by the respondents-tenants and it was the plaintiff-landlord who failed to renew the rent agreement and the concurrent findings so recorded cannot be interfered with.
8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materials on record, the question falling for consideration is whether after expiry of the lease period and the detennination of the tenancy whether the respondents-tenants can continue in possession of the suit property, when the lease was not renewed?
9. The suit property was let out to the respondents-tenants by a registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years on rent @ Rs.750/- per month. There was a specific term in the rent agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate rent agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced D rent from Rs. 750!- to Rs.800/- per month. The lease was not renewed and thereafter the landlord issued a notice to the respondents-tenants on 09 .04.1979 seeking vacant possession of the suit property on account of detcnnination oflease due to efflux of time.
10. The trial court was of the view that there was no violation of E the terms of the lease deed as they had put in sufficient efforts in getting the rent agreement renewed. For atTiving at such conclusion, the trial court and the High Court placed reliance upon Ex. A-18 (13.06.1978) a notice allegedly issued by the plaintiff's advocate Guizar Mohd. intimating the tenants that they are willing to renew the lease as per the terms of F the rent agreement provided the tenants pay enhanced rent@ Rs.8001- per month. This piece of evidence was categorically denied by the landlord. The trial court did not keep in view the denial of the appellant- landlord regarding issuance of Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978). In the light of denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 notice, it was necessary to adduce evidence to prove that Ex. A-18 notice was actually issued on instructions G by the landlord. The burden was upon the respondents-tenants to prove that the said notice was issued by advocate Guizar Mohd. on the instructions of the landlord. The trial court pointed out that the respondents-tenants had taken steps to examine the said advocate; but he had not appeared before the court. From the materials on record, it SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI v. LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] is not knmvn as to what steps were taken by the tenants to examine the said advocate Guizar Mohd. The trial court, in our view, could have very well exercised its power under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC and summoned the said advocate as witness. In the absence of examination of the said advocate Guizar Mohd., the trial court ought not to have placed reliance upon Ex. A~l8 notice alleged to have been issued on the instructions of the landlord.
11. Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978) is said to have been issued on the instructions of the landlord. As pointed out earlier, the landlord issued eviction notice on 09. 04 .1979 seeking vacant possession of the premises. If really Ex. A-18 notice dated 13.06.1978 was issued at the instance of c the landlord offering to renew the lease, there was no requirement of issuance of eviction notice on 09 .04.1979 calling upon the respondents- tenants to hand over the vacant possession ofthe·suit property. The courts below erred in ignoring landlord's denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 notice (13 .06.1978) and non-examination ofadvocate Guizar Mohd. The High Court was not right in holding that the respondents-tenants have taken steps to get renewal ofrent agreement and there was reluctance only on the part of the landlord. Be it noted, the tenants have not approached the court to get renewal of lease agreement beyond 12.08.1978.
12. As pointed out earlier, on 09.04.1979, the landlord issued a notice to the respondents-tenants seeking vacant possession of the demised premises on account of detennination oflease due to efflux of time. After lapse of lease period, if a lessee continues in possession of the demised premises in absence of an assent by lessor, then he is a tenant by sufferance and exposes himself to be sued for ejectment at any time without any prior notice or demand of possession.
13. The tenn in the lease agreement for renewal of lease deed does not ipso facto extend the tenure or term of the lease. So far as the clause for renewal in the lease deed is concerned, it was held in Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish (1973) 2 SCC 825 that such covenant only entitled a lessee to obtain a fresh lease in accordance with and in due satisfaction of the law governing the making ofleases. In the absence of renewal of rent agreement, in our considered view, the possession of the respondents-tenants in the demised premises has become unlawful and they arc liable to be evicted.
14. Yet another ground for eviction is construction of shops in the suit premises by the tenants and sub-letting the same in violation of terms of rent agreement. Though, there is a clause in the rent agreement enabling the tenants to put up construction, there is no clause in the lease agreement permitting the tenants to transfer his interest of tenancy to B third party. It is the case of the appellant that in violation of the rent agreement, Anwar Ul Haq who was one of the original tenants, transferred his interest of tenancy in favour of third respondent Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman. The appellant-landlord specifically denied that such transfer of interest in the tenancy was with the consent of the original landlord. On the other hand, the respondents-tenants in support of their C claim submitted that such transfer of interest in tenancy had taken place with the consent and knowledge of the original landlord, relied upon Exs. Al toA7 which are the receipts said to have been signed by the original landlord issuing to Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman as one of the tenants. In view of specific denial by the appellant-landlord that they have permitted D such transfer of interest, the receipts Exs. Al to A 7 ought to have been proved by adducing evidence. The respondents-tenants, though relied upon the said documents, had not taken steps to prove those documents.
15. On those issues, the courts below recorded findings that the rent agreement nowhere prohibited any of the tenants from transferring E their interest in tenancy and therefore, there was no violation of any of the terms of the rent agreement. In noting so, the trial court lost sight of the fact that in the rent agreement, parties specifically incorporated clause (9), permitting sub-letting by tenants. Had the parties agreed to create or transfer ofinterest in the tenancy in favour of third party, they would · have added a specific term in that regard in the rent agreement. Though, sub-letting of the premises for commercial purpose was agreed to by the original parties, transfer of interest in tenancy leading to creation of third party interest in the suit property could not have been done in the absence of a specific term in the rent agreement. Thus, the respondents- tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of violation of terms of rent agreement by transfer of interest in tenancy to respondent No. 3 -Mohd. G Ilyas alias Chaman.
16. So far as the default in payment of rent and the deposit arrears of rent by the defendants and whether the respondents arc entitled to the benefits of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the courts below recorded concurrent findings that Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI v. LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.J 13 of 1972 has been complied with. According to the appellant-landlord, the respondents have failed to regularly deposit the rent in the trial court and there was no compliance of Section 20( 4) of the U.P. Act 13 ·of 1972. Since we have held that the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of non-renewal of rent agreement and determination of tenancy and transfer of tenancy right in violation of terms of rent agreement, we are not proposed to go into the ground of default in payment B of rent and compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13of1972.
17. The courts below did not properly appreciate that after service of eviction notice on 09.04.1979 continuanc.e of respondents' possession in the demised premises had become illegal. The High Court did riot appreciate that the respondents have sub-let the property to third party and are earning huge profits by simply paying a meager rent ofRs.800/ -per month. The respondents-tenants cannot squat on the property and make a profit for themselves at the cost of the appellant-landlord and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents-tenants and the sub-tenants inducted by them and any other person claiming through them are directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within a period of one year from today, failing which the respondents-tenants and their sub-tenants or other persons claiming through them shall be liable for contempt of E Court in addition to other proceedings. No order as to costs. Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.