DEEDS – Deeds and Documents Notwithstanding that law does not frown upon a permanent lease,
there must be clear indications arising from the terms in the document to hold that
the lease in question was intended to be a permanent one
As stated above, the principles in Green v. Palmer were later deviated by
English Courts. They cannot be straight away applied discounting the facts of this
case. Startling differences in facts in both the cases cannot be ignored. Although
the contention raised by the plaintiff that as in the case of Lalji Tandon, a
separate deed is required for renewal of the lease may not hold good in this case
because in Lalji Tandon's case that was a stipulation borne out from the materials
placed before the Supreme Court. And in this case, no such stipulation could be
seen from Ext. A1. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances under
which the lease was made, purpose of the lease, original term of the lease
agreed to by the parties, rate of rent, stipulations regarding the manner in which
rent was agreed to be paid, etc., I am of the view that theory of automatic renewal
of lease beyond a term of first renewal for 20 years cannot be read into the terms
in Ext. A1. In otherwords, second renewal of the lease cannot be said to be an
automatic event and the concept of automatic renewal in the said clause can only
be made applicable to the first renewal. Recalling the principles of interpretation
of deeds discussed above, all the clauses in the document must be given effect
to and they should be harmoniously construed. Notwithstanding that law does not
frown upon a permanent lease, there must be clear indications arising from the
terms in the document to hold that the lease in question was intended to be a
permanent one. Applying the relevant principles mentioned above to the facts of
this case, I am of the definite view that the lessee cannot claim a right to get a
second renewal for another term of 20 years and Clause I(h) conferred only a
legal right on the lessee for one renewal after the expiry of the original term.
Viewing from this angle, the Courts below are legally justified in dismissing the
claim of the defendants.
Important Para(s) : 34
: - 1979 KHC 540 : - 1989 KHC 717 : - 1944 (1) All. ER 668 : - 2004 KHC 320 : -
1954 KHC 199 : - AIR 1981 AP 328 : - 1912 (17) IC 180 : - 1949 G.886 : - 1950
Ch. 644 : - 1977 KHC 508 : - 1994 KHC 194 : - 1999 KHC 1157 : - 2005 KHC 2239
Coram : A. Hariprasad, J. ( Kerala High Court )
Party : Indira Motor Service (M/s. ) and Others v. Panakkat Nazaruddin and
Others
Advocate : B. G. Bhaskar; Biju Abraham; For Appellants
P. B. Krishnan; K. R. Avinash (Kunnath); Abdul Raoof Pallipath; For
Respondents
Citation : 2015 (5) KHC 174 : 2015 (4) KLJ 357 : 2016 (1) KLT SN 92
CaseNo : R. S. A. No. 282 of 2015
Date : 07/10/2015