IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 587 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.2.2009 Jawahar Lal Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Jal Vayu Vihar Apartments owners Association (Regd) ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Suraj Parkash Ahlawat and Mr.Anil Shukla, Advocates for the respondent/caveator. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Courts below whereby the interim injunction prayed for by the petitioner was declined. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was granted licence to run a shop in Jal Vayu Vihar adjoining the Community Center for the period from August 1, 2003, to July 31, 2005 which was extendable with further 12 months with mutual consent. The amount of rent was determined as Rs. 29,000/- per month. On application by the petitioner the lease was extended for another year upto July 31, 2006 at monthly rent of Rs. 31,900/-. The shop was put to auction thereafter and the petitioner being again successful in the auction held, was granted lease for a period of two years from August 1, 2006 to July 31, 2008 at a monthly rent of Rs. 33,000/-. On the last date of expiry of period of licence/lease, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking extension of lease period for another one year. The application filed for interim injunction in the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the order was upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner has been inducted as a tenant in the shop even after expiry of lease period, he has right to retain the possession thereof and he can be evicted only in due course of law. He had a right to get the extension of lease for another year and for which he had even requested to the respondent and that request was not even considered. He should not be thrown out from the shop in question as he is earning his livelihood from there. C.R. No. 587 of 2009 (O&M) -2- A caveat has been filed by the respondent/defendant and learned counsel representing the caveator has also been heard. He has referred to the lease deed signed by the petitioner in terms of which he was granted lease for the period of 24 months from August 1, 2006 to July 31, 2008 which was extendable for further 12 months with mutual consent of the parties unless terminated prior thereto under the provisions of agreement. He further referred to Clause 37 of the agreement which provided that after the expiry of lease period the vacant possession of the premises was to be handed over to the lesssor within 7 days thereof and in case of default the lessee was liable to pay Rs. 5000/- per day as penalty. He further submitted that because of conduct of the petitioner the respondent was not ready to extend the lease period for another year as is envisaged in the agreement. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Admittedly the petitioner was granted lease which expired on July 31, 2008. The provision of lease agreement which provide for extension for a further period of 12 months could be only by mutual consent of the parties for which the lessor is not agreed. In such circumstances, the petitioner does not have any right to retain possession of the property. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that he could be evicted only in due course of law is also misconceived as the petitioner himself is availing remedies in due course of law. He is seeking injunction for his eviction from the property in dispute inspite of the fact that in terms of the agreement signed between the parties he does not have any right to retain possession of the property after July 31, 2008. As far as the contention raised by the petitioner for earning his livelihood from the shop in question is concerned, it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that he had a right to retain the possession of the property only till July 31, 2008 unless the same was extended for another year. He had signed the agreement with his open eyes. Even such contention is also cannot be relied upon to retain possession of the property. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 3.2.2009 JUDGE Reema