Idea Mobile Communications Ltd. vs Kamlesh Gupta

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, it transpires that this second appeal is against the concurrent judgments and findings of the Civil Judge as well as Additional District Judge asking the appellant to vacate the premises along with the payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

The backdrop facts between the parties are that five years term lease was granted to the "Escotel Company" (which is later renamed "Idea Company") by the landlady for installing the mobile tower. It was extendable for next five years. So, this extension was availed by the lessee. After the expiry of 10 years, the landlady terminated the tenancy of the lessee by serving appropriate notice of one month. The lessee did not vacate the premises and continued to occupy the same along with his tower and paraphernalia for next five years and even further. So, she was impelled to institute the suit against the Escotel Company and the suit was decreed. The first appeal preferred by the Company failed. So, here this is the second appeal.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lease could not have been terminated by issuance of one-month prior notice. This contention of appellants'' counsel is totally baseless and rejected for the reason that this was an unregistered lease and it was the well founded principle/statutory law as well that where the lease is for more than one year, then it must be registered as envisaged u/s 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the instant case, the lease was unregistered between the parties. So, it will deemed to be a lease on month-to-month basis and that was quite terminable at the issuance of notice by the landlady for one month.

The basic alleged substantial questions of law, which have been drafted in the second appeal, are quite unsustainable. The Trial Court has decided the appeal in accordance with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. Additional issues under Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C., were framed by the learned Additional District Judge were in the compliance of the order of the High Court dated 06.05.2013.

It has been argued that the defendant-appellant was not rendered an opportunity to adduce the evidence in order to prove or disprove this additional issues. This argument is unacceptable because if the First Appellate Court kept him deprived from adducing the evidence in order to prove or disprove these additional issues then nothing prevented him to agitate his grievances at the relevant time either before that very Court or before superior Court.

As regards the termination of lease by one-month prior notice, the view of this Court has already been expressed.

As regards the mesne profits fixed by the Court below, which has been highlighted to be Rs. 2,000/- per day is concerned, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that this Idea Company is minting profits by subletting the transmission to several other companies. So, the mesne profits inasmuch as the fixation of Rs. 2000/- per day is not inappropriate in the Court''s view.

Fourth question, which has been drafted in the second appeal that whether the suit was within jurisdiction of the Trial Court, this question by itself is untenable at this stage. Firstly, the tower is installed in Dehradun town, so, controversy and the cause of action between the parties arose in Dehradun town and this way, the jurisdiction of the case is in Dehradun Court and no other Court has jurisdiction over the same. If the appellant questions on the jurisdiction of Court, then he would have raised the same at the initial stage of the Trial.

The second appeal is totally bereft of any merit and liable to be rejected. So, it is hereby dismissed.