1969 PLP 29 (SCMR)

The lease in favour of Bakhshi Dalip Singh was for a period of 10 years but was renewable at the option of the lessee, on the same tennis and conditions; for a. further period of 10 years. On the partition of the country in 1947, Bakhshi Dalip Singh migrated to India and the premises in question were treated as evacuee property. The petitioner, however, continued as a tenant under the Rehabilitation Department by paying rent to that Department. Subsequently, when Settlement operations started, the property was disposed of by public auction and the petitioner purchased the same for Rs. 8,890 on the 23rd November 1961. P. T. D. was ultimately issued in his favour on the 31st January 1965. The Municipal Committee, subsequently, sought to eject the petitioner on the ground that the period of the lease had expired but the petitioner filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the lease in question stood renewed up to the end of 1971 or, in the alternative, for a decree for specific performance of the contract of lease of the said land. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the lease expired in 1951 and thereafter there was no evacuee interest left which could have been acquired by the petitioner. This decision was upheld in appeal both by the Additional District Judge of Rawalpindi and by the High Court of West Pakistan in Second Appeal. The High Court also refused to certify the case to be fit for appeal under the Letters Patent. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. Two main contentions have been advanced on his behalf. The first is that the High Court had wrongfully refused to allow him to amend his plaint at the second appellate stage. By this amendment he sought to raise the question that after the property had been placed into the compensation pool under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958, the property vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and, therefore, when it was transferred to the petitioner, he became the full fledged owner thereof. This amendment was, in our opinion, rightly disallowed, for as the High Court has pointed out, it sought to introduce a completely new case on which no evidence had been led and the parties had never joined issue at any earlier stage. His second contention is that in any event, since this was a leasehold interest, renewable at the option of the lessee, on the same terms and conditions, the lease should have been treated as having been automatically extended after every 10 years. At any rate, the Municipal Committee could not, during the period of subsistence of any extended period of the lease, evict the petitioner. The lease was, according to this formula valid at least till 1971 and if the Municipal Committee wanted to evict the petitioner, it could do so only after refusing to renew the lease on the expiry of the present period of the lease, in 1971. We are unable to accept this contention, for, this would amount to extending the lease in perpetuity whereas the intention of the parties clearly was to the contrary. The lease was for 10 years certain and for another period of 10 years at the option of lessee. After that the lease could only be kept alive if the lessor agreed to it. Looked at from this point of view, the lease granted in 1941 expired in 1961. It could not be continued thereafter unless the Municipal Committee agreed to such continuance. In the circumstances the Courts below were right in dismissing the petitioner's suit, for, he had no cause of action. We see no reason to interfere and, accordingly, dismiss. This petition. Leave refused: