State Bank of India and others vs Rajrani

Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of the present petition, the revisionist is challenging the order dated 18th January, 2011 by which the court below has directed the revisionist to vacate the premises in question within three months and also directed to pay the arrear of rent as well as damages.

The property in dispute was given on lease for the period of ten years on 25th September, 1997, which had expired in the year 2007. It appears that the revisionist has continued in possession thereafter also and paid the rent. The suit was filed for eviction and arrear of rent, which has been decreed by the impugned order.

I have perused the lease agreement.

Clause 1(e) provides that after the expiry of the period or any extension thereof, the lessee shall deliver physical possession of the premises to the landlord.

In view of the above, even if the rent for the period after the expiry of the leased period has been paid and accepted by the landlord, the revisionist will not get a right to continue as a tenant after the expiry of the period in the absence of any further agreement. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of the court below, which requires interference.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that some reasonable time may be allowed to vacate the premises to which the learned counsel for the respondent has not raised any serious objection.

Three months'' period, as granted by the court below, has already expired. Therefore, a further three months'' period from today is allowed to the revisionist to vacate the premises and pay all the decreetal amount.

With the aforesaid observations, the revision stands dismissed.