Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Smt. Nargis Khanna vs M/S. Win-Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 18 July, 2011
(v) Relying on Smt. Nargis Khanna Vs. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr vs Biswanath Banerjee & Anr on 3 April, 1989
11. I will first take up the contention of the counsel for the appellant, of
an extension of lease being different from renewal of lease and a lease even
though for a certain period, as in this case for a period of five years only, if
provides for extension, so stands extended even in the absence of execution
of a fresh lease. Such an argument is often found to be raised on behalf of
lessees or tenants relying on Provash Chandra Dalui (supra) which
undoubtedly in para 14 thereof holds the word „extension‟ to be different
from the word „renewal‟ and further that while in the case of renewal, a new
lease is required, in the case of extension the same lease continues in force
during the additional period by performance of the stipulated act.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Lalji Tandon (Dead) on 3 November, 2003
17. I find a Division Bench of this Court in Punchip Associates P. Ltd.
Vs. Rajdev Singh MANU/DE/0633/2011 before which also reliance was
placed on Lalji Tandon supra to have held the reference in the Lease Deed
to extension thereof to mean renewal thereof and finding that Lease Deed
had not been renewed to have held that there was no Lease Deed in
existence/operation.
Busching Schmitz Private Ltd vs P.T. Menghani And Anr on 17 March, 1977
14. I have therefore minutely read the facts of Provash Chandra Dalui
and find that the lease before the Court in that case was for a period of
twenty years but with a condition that it will in the first instance be for a
period of ten years and if the lessee did not fail to pay the rent and perform
its other obligations during that period, the lease would be „extended‟ for a
further period of five years and similarly for a yet further period of five
years. The question which had arisen in that case was whether such a lease
would be for a period of ten years or twenty years inasmuch as under the
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 protection from eviction was available
only if the lease was for a period of less than twelve years and was not
available if the lease was for a period of twenty years. While holding the
lease in that case to be not for a period of less than twelve years, the
Supreme Court carved out the distinction aforesaid between renewal of lease
RFA No.134/2013 Page 11 of 16
and extension of lease. It would thus be seen that the observations in
Provash Chandra Dalui relied upon by the appellant / defendant to the
effect that extension of lease does not require execution of a fresh Lease
Deed were made by the Supreme Court in the context of a lease for twenty
years i.e. on which Stamp Duty as on a lease for twenty years had been paid
and which as per its terms was in the first instance for ten years and
extendable for two further terms of five years each on performance of some
obligations by the lessee i.e. for total period of twenty years. In such a
situation, where the parties had already executed the lease for maximum
time agreed, even though operation of the lease for such maximum period
was contingent, it was held that upon happening of contingency enabling the
lease to operate for maximum time, no fresh lease was required to be
executed. However the said judgment cannot be read as permitting making
of a lease for a longer period by paying the stamp duty for lesser period, by
using the word „extension‟.
The State Of Orissa vs Sudhansu Sekhar Misra And Ors on 7 November, 1967
Reference in this regard may be
RFA No.134/2013 Page 12 of 16
made to (i) State of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra Air 1968 SC 647,
Government Of Karnataka & Ors vs Smt. Gowramma And Ors on 14 December, 2007
(iv) Government of Karnataka Vs. Gowramma (2007) 13 SCC 482.
Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. vs Mohinder Pal Singh Khurana & Ors. on 28 February, 2013
Another Division Bench of this Court in Lord Chloro
Alkali Ltd. Vs. Mohinder Pal Singh Khurana MANU/DE/0595/2013
before which also Lalji Tandon was relied upon, finding that after four years
for which the Lease was executed and inspite of provision in the Lease Deed
for renewal thereof on enhancement on rent no new Lease Deed to have
RFA No.134/2013 Page 13 of 16
been executed held the Lease Deed to be for a period of four years only for
which the Stamp Duty thereon had been paid and not for any longer period.
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company on 15 May, 2007
18. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in this regard has cited
Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. Vs. Hede & Company (2007) 5 SCC 614 holding
that there is no concept of automatic renewal of lease by mere exercise of
option by the lessee and on Shanti Prasad Devi Vs. Shankar Mahto (2005)
5 SCC 543 holding that there can be no implicit renewal of lease by holding
over on mere acceptance of rent offered by the lessee.
M/S Nopany Investments (P) Ltd vs Santokh Singh (Huf) on 10 December, 2007
23. Not only so, the Supreme Court in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs.
Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) 2 SCC 728 followed by this Court in Shriram
Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. C.B. Agarwal HUF MANU/DE/2381/2008 has
held that service of summons of a suit for ejectment by a landlord itself
serves as a notice of determination of tenancy and even in the absence of
valid notice, ejectment can be ordered on the basis of determination of
tenancy by service of such summons.