Case: Naveen Chand  Vs. Nagarjuna Travels And Hotels Pvt. Ltd

The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the tenants from the premises described as "Central Studio", DoorBasheer Bagh Road, Hyderabad and Door No.119/A, White Hall, Sardar Patel Road, Hyderabad. The appellants, who was travelers of the "Central Studio", were tenants of the premises under the respondent Nagarjuna Travels and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which is the owner of the plot.3. The respondent filed the aforementioned suit against the appellants seeking the decree of eviction from the suit premises. It the suit the following reliefs were sought by thep.m. for the months of September, 1995 and October, 1995 be awarded from the defendants jointly and severally.c) An amount of Rs. 2,40,000/be awarded towards compensation and damages for the use and occupation of the suit premises for the period between 1.11.1995 and 30.4.1996 from the defendants jointly and severally.d) Pendente lite and post decreetal compensation/damages be awarded from the defendants jointly and severally at the rate of Rs.40,000/per month for the use and occupation of the suitThe trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed several issues including the issue whether the plea of the defendants that there was a renewal of lease for a further period of 25 years on the same terms an conditions is true and whether the defendants are entitled to make such a claim under law? And whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the plea raised by the defendants vide Andhra Pradesh Building, Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act?6. It is relevant to state here that the appellants also filed a suit against the respondents, O.S. No. 461/98 for issuance of a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from proceeding to interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therein they had reiterated the case set up by them in the written statement in the suit filed by the respondents. They claimed to be in possession of the suit property in exercise of the option of renewal of lease as stipulated in the registered document.7. In the written statement filed by the respondents in the said suit they also reiterated the stand taken in the suit filed by them. They asserted that there was no right of renewal vested in the lessee under the deed, and after the expiry of the lease period they had no right to remain in possession of the property, particularly after the notice of termination of lease issued by the landlord was received by them.8. In the said suit one of the issues framed by the Trial Court was whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? Both the suits were tried together with consent of the counsel appearing for the parties and disposed of by the Trial Court in a common judgment. The trial Court held inter alia that the suit was maintainable in Civil Court; that the defendants were not entitled for renewal of the lease for a like period on the same terms and conditions; that the defendants failed to establish the entitlement of renewal; and that the plaintiff had every right to issue termination of notice. The Trial Court summed up its findings in theseon a careful perusal of evidence adduced by the plaintiff together with the documents, I am of the opinion that defendants are not entitled for counter claim as sought for. On the other hand, the plaintiff is entitled for the direction direction the defendants to be evicted from the schedulethe stand taken by the defendants that there was a reduction of the area in their occupation, the trial Court held that from 1.11.1995 to 13.10.1998 the defendants were in occupation of 2734 sq.ft. and subsequently they were in occupation of 2008 sq.ft. On the plaintiffs claim of damages for use for and occupation of the premises, the trial Court was of the opinion that a sum of Rs.20,000/will meet the ends of justice and accordingly awarded Rs.20,000/as damages for the period 1.11.1995 to 30.4.1996, i.e. the period from the date of filing the suit till the date of delivery of possession. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court the defendants filed CCCA Nos. 99 and 100/99 before the High Court assailing the judgment. The High Court, on consideration of the case of the parties, confirmed the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence, the appeal by the defendants.

Reasoning:
From the above noted covenant in the lease deed it is clear that the lease was granted for a period of 25 years in the first instance with the right of renewal as hereinafter set out Though the right or renewal is mentioned in the clause there is no mention about the terms and conditions of renewal either in the clause quoted above or elsewhere in the document. On a fair reading of the documents it appears that the right of renewal stated therein is shrouded in uncertainty and vagueness. The renewal clause in a lease deed is an important term of the agreement. Ordinarily the Court should be reluctant to ignore such a term of the lease, unless on a fair reading and reasonable construction no meaning can be attached to it. Since the renewal clause is not clear and specific regarding the terms of renewal the Court is to ascertain the intention of the parties for the materials on record. As noted earlier, the lease deed read as a whole, does not indicate the manner in which the right of renewal is to be exercised by the parties and the terms and conditions of such renewal. It is not even stated in the document that the renewal will be subject to terms and conditions to be decided by the parties by mutual discussion or according to any other procedure. There is no indication whether such discussion will at all be held or not. Renewal being an important condition of lease, could not have been dealt with in such careless andmanner and would not have been left in such vague and uncertain condition if the parties were serious about the renewal of the lease. On appreciation of the evidence the Courts below having not believed the case of the defendants that some verbal requests for renewal of the lease were made by them to the plaintiff after expiry of the period of lease, the Courts have found that no attempt as made by the lessees to suggest the terms and conditions for renewal of the lease particularly the rent to be paid by them except offering the rent for two months at the old rate. In such circumstances, if the Courts below have found that the lessees had no enforceable right of renewal under the document and indeed had not taken any step for execution by any document on renewal of the lease, no exception can be taken to such findings. No fixed principle orformula can be laid down regarding the question whether the condition of renewal in the lease which is vague and uncertain should be enforced. The question is the be judged on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, the lease is in respect of premises which was situated in a busy commercial centre of the city of Hyderabad and lease of the property had been taken and was being used for commercial purposes. In such a case it is difficult to accept that the parties had intended that the lessees can unilaterally exercise the right of renewal without the terms and conditions of renewal being settled between the parties. At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that the lessees (appellants herein) had made no attempt to get the terms and conditions of renewal of the lease fixed by mutual discussions with theherein. So far as the lessor is concerned it had made its intention clear by sending the notice of termination of the lease.