Summary
The Court reversed dismissal of a landlord’s ejectment suit because the fixed-term lease was not renewed and a tenancy interest was transferred without proven consent. It distinguished contractual permission to sublet from permission to transfer the tenancy itself, and left the separate rent-default question undecided.
Issues
- Whether a renewal covenant and disputed correspondence extended the expired lease.
- Whether permission to construct and sublet authorized transfer of a tenant’s interest to a third party.
Held
- A renewal covenant does not automatically extend the lease; it entitles the lessee to obtain a fresh lease in accordance with law. Without renewal or the lessor’s assent, continued possession after expiry is tenancy by sufferance. (¶ 9–13)
- The tenants bore the burden of proving the alleged advocate’s renewal notice after the landlord denied authorizing it. Without examining the advocate or otherwise proving authority, the lower courts should not have relied on that notice to attribute reluctance to the landlord. (¶ 10–11)
- Permission to construct and commercially sublet did not itself authorize transfer of the tenancy interest. The alleged consent receipts were specifically denied and unproved; the unauthorized transfer supported eviction. (¶ 14–15)
- Because eviction followed on non-renewal and unlawful transfer grounds, the Court did not decide rent default or compliance with section20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh rent statute. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; impugned judgment set aside. Tenants, subtenants and all claiming through them directed to hand over vacant possession within one year, failing which contempt liability would arise in addition to other proceedings.