Lessee's suit for specific performance seeking renewal of an expired 35-year lease for a further five years. The High Court held no legal right to renewal accrued under clause (iv), which required a separate deed by mutual consent, and upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suit as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1788 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
M/S PATEL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
NO.77, KHATHA NO.537
OPP. R.V. ENGINEERING COLLEGE BANGALORE-MYSORE HIGHWAY VALAGERAHALLI
KENGARI HOBLI
BANGALORE – 560 059.
Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
A REGISTERED PARTNERHSIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI. UMESH BABU PATEL
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
SRI. C. PURUSHOTHAM
S/O. LATE SRI. G.K.CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO.212 BELLARY ROAD SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 080.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.5529/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 34TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present Regular First Appeal is filed calling in question the order passed in O.S.No.5529/2019 dated 20.01.2022 by the Court of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit came to be dismissed on the preliminary issue as the suit having become infructuous.
3.1 The plaintiff has filed suit seeking decree of
specific performance of the registered deed of lease dated 12.03.1981 by directing the defendant to renew the lease for a further period of five years commencing from 16.02.2016; to execute the deed of renewal of lease in respect of the schedule property on behalf of the
HC-KAR
defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the same terms and conditions as are agreed to in the said lease deed dated 12.03.1981; declare that the notice dated 24.04.2017 issued by the defendant terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff as null and void and it is not binding on the plaintiff; in the event of failure of the defendant in the execution of the deed of renewal of lease, this Court may be pleased to direct an officer of this Court to execute the deed of renewal of lease in respect of the schedule property on behalf of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the registered lease deed dated 12.03.1981 for further period of five years commencing from 16.02.2016 and other reliefs.
3.2 It is contended that the defendant is the owner
of the schedule property and there was an agreement of registered lease deed dated 12.03.1981 executed between the defendant and the plaintiff for a period of 35 years commencing from 16.02.1981 and expiring on 15.02.2016 on a monthly rental of Rs.300/- for the first five years and
HC-KAR
thereafter on monthly rent of Rs.500/- for the remainder of the lease period. The plaintiff has constructed an industrial shed on the said property. It is contended that the said lease dated 12.03.1981 enabled the plaintiff to seek for renewal of the said lease for a further period of five years after the expiry of the initial period of lease of 35 years and the same was at the option of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff by a letter dated 19.03.2006 sent through Advocate intimating the defendant that the plaintiff has exercised its option to seek for renewal of lease deed dated 12.03.1981 for renewal of lease in terms of the Clause (iv) of the said lease deed. The defendant did not deny or refuse to renew the lease deed. Thereafter, the defendant has issued a notice dated 24.04.2017, terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, which is contrary to the terms of the lease deed dated 12.03.1981. Therefore, it is contended that the lease is automatically stood renewed for a further period of 5 years from 16.02.2016.
HC-KAR
3.3 The defendant has filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for renewal of lease period as he has no legal right. The defendant has claimed that he has not renewed the lease period and he has sought for payment of the damages for delay in delivering the possession of the schedule premises. Therefore, with this relief, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
3.4 The trial Court upon the pleadings of the parties
has framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that the registered lease deed dated 12.03.1981 enables it to seek for renewal of lease for a further period of five years after expiry of initial period of lease of 35 years at its option?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that notice dated 24.04.2017 terminating its tenancy in respect of suit schedule premises is contrary to the terms of the registered lease deed dated 12.03.1981 and as such said notice is null and void?
HC-KAR
3. Whether plaintiff prove that it has sent a letter dated 19.03.2016 through its Advocate and plaintiff continued to occupy the suit schedule premises as a lease for further period of five years from 16.02.2016 as defendant did not deny or refuse to renew the lease in spite of receipt of said letter?
4. Whether defendant proves that renewal of lease has to be extended by mutual agreement and cannot be demanded by the plaintiff as a matter of right?
5. Whether defendant proves that during the pendency of O.S.No.361/2010 the contract of tenancy was for a period of 35 years came to an end by efflux of time on 15.02.2016 and this suit filed on 26.07.2019 is barred by limitation?
6. What order or decree?
1. Whether defendant proves that the suit filed by the plaintiff has become infructuous as lease for a further period of five years ended on 15.02.2021?
HC-KAR
2. What order?
3.6 The trial Court upon the preliminary issue has held that during the pendency of the suit further period of five years from 16.02.2016 to 15.02.2021 was expired and it is the reason assigned by the trial Court that at Clause (iv) in the lease deed, it is on part of the plaintiff to seek renewal of the lease deed, but the defendant has not continued the lease period. Further, the Trial Court has assigned the reasons that though the option was given to the plaintiff for getting renewal of the lease deed from 16.02.2016 for a period of 5 years which is ended on 15.02.2021, no separate deed came to be executed between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, even if the suit is decreed but it could not be executable as period of lease is expired. Hence, the suit is dismissed holding that the suit has become infructuous.
Trial Court, has preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds and learned counsel appearing for the
HC-KAR
appellant/plaintiff has argued the matter in consonance with the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and submitted that as per the clause (iv) of the lease deed, a legal right is accrued in favour of the plaintiff for seeking further renewal of lease period and also for extension of lease period. Therefore, only after completion of 35 years of lease period, the plaintiff has right to get renewal of the lease period by executing the fresh deed by relying on the terms and conditions of clause (iv) of the lease deed. Therefore, it is submitted that the plaintiff is entitled for relief of extension of lease deed by decree of specific performance.
HC-KAR
recording further evidence has held that the suit has become infructuous is nothing but miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays to allow the appeal. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on the following judgments:
1. The judgment of Full Bench of Court in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai vs. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and others1
2. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. V. Lalitha vs. K.H.Puttaswamy Gowda2
3. The judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Prithvi Raj Jhingta vs. Gopal Singh3
1 AIR 2019 KARNATAKA 47
2 ILR 2024 KAR 19
3 LAWS(HPH)-2006-9-1
NC: 2026:KHC:29081 RFA No. 1788 of 2022
HC-KAR
of five years has already lapsed on 15.02.2021. Therefore,
justified the order by the Trial Court.
HC-KAR
the same relief as claimed in the present suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of specific performance as prayed for.
for the parties, the following points arise for consideration:
HC-KAR
1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff is entitled to renewal of lease period from 16.02.2016 to 15.02.2021 as if claiming as a legal right?
2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance is barred by limitation?
3. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit on preliminary issue holding that the suit has become infructuous, requires interference by this Court?
12. Upon considering the pleadings involved in the
case, admittedly, the defendant is the owner of the schedule premises. The plaintiff is lessee and the defendant is a lessor and in between them a lease deed was executed on 12.03.1981. Therefore, the plaintiff is in possession over the property on the basis of lease deed as a lessee. Initially, the lease period was 35 years and the lease period of 35 years was ended on 15.02.2016. The
NC: 2026:KHC:29081 RFA No. 1788 of 2022
HC-KAR
lease deed is signed on 12.03.1981 but the duration period commences from 16.02.1981. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance for seeking extension of further period of five years from 16.2.2016 to 15.02.2021.
of the immediate preceding period. For the clear
NC: 2026:KHC:29081 RFA No. 1788 of 2022
HC-KAR
understanding of the said Clauses (iv) and (v) of the said
lease deed are stated as follows:
“IV DURATION OF THE LEASE
THE LESSOR AND LESSEE hereby covenant that the duration of the Lease shall be thirty Five years certain, commencing from the 16th day of February, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty One on which date the LESSEE is put in possession of the leased area and renewable at the option of the LESSEE for further periods of Six years each subject to the increased rent specified in clause 3 to by executing a separate deed.
V. LEASE RENT:
The LESSEE covenants to pay the monthly rents at the rates specified below:
| Sl. Period No. |
Rates at which the Lesser Covenants topay the rent |
|---|---|
| 1. For the First Five Years Commencing from the Day of One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty One. |
Rupees Three Hundred per month |
| 2. For the Next Thirty Years |
Rupees five Hundred per month. |
| 3. For the period beyond Thirty five years for each period of 5 years |
At 10% increase over the lease rent of the immediate preceding period. |
| Such rent shall be paid on or Calendar Month.” |
before the Tenth day of each |
that initial duration of the lease period was 35 years and
that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property.
HC-KAR
An option was granted to the plaintiff/lessee to extend the lease for further period of 5 years each, subject to the increased rent as specified in clause (v) thereto, by executing a separate deed.
rent of the immediate preceding period. However, considering the clauses in the lease, nowhere there is a clause that there is a compulsion on the defendant to renew the lease for further period of 5 years after completion of initial lease period of 35 years. There is no legal right accrued to the plaintiff to get renewal of lease for further period of five years after completion of the initial 35 years period. A lthough an option was given to the plaintiff to seek a renewal of the lease, any such renewal or extension remains entirely within the discretion of the defendant-owner.
HC-KAR
lease for a further period of 5 years after completion of the initial 35 years must be done by executing a separate deed. Admittedly, there is no such renewal lease deed executed. The defendant issued a notice of termination on 15.09.2009. When it is proved that upon efflux of the initial period of 35 years of lease, it is clear that the defendant at no point of time intended to execute a separate lease deed or to extend the lease. Therefore, there is no execution of renewal lease deed or extension of lease.
“29. It is thus apparent that the appellant-plaintiff exercised its right under the agreement to claim a renewal of the term of the lease and the respondentdefendant refuted that claim and denied the assertion
4 (2007) 5 SCC 614
HC-KAR
that the agreement stood renewed as alleged from 1-12002 to 31-12-2006 or for any other period whatsoever. In view of the correspondence exchanged between the parties, clearly a cause of action accrued to the appellant-plaintiff since its right of renewal as a matter of course claimed by it was denied by the respondent-defendant. Whether the denial was justified or not is another matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a right accrued to the appellant-plaintiff to sue the respondent-defendant and to get a declaration that the agreement stood automatically renewed for a further period of 5 years. It is the admitted position that the appellant-plaintiff did not pursue the matter further and never sought relief from any court of law of competent jurisdiction for a declaration that the lease stood renewed automatically upon the appellantplaintiff exercising its option under the agreement. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-defendant that there is no question of automatic renewal of an agreement or lease by mere exercise of the option which the appellant-plaintiff may claim under the agreement. The respondent contends that renewal of an agreement or lease requires execution of another document evidencing such renewal and, in its absence, it cannot be argued that the agreement or lease stood automatically renewed. It was also urged relying upon the decision of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] that the grant of renewal is a fresh grant and must be consistent with law. The respondents relied on the decision of this Court in Provash Chandra Dalui v. Biswanath Banerjee wherein this Court considered the difference between “extension” and “renewal” of a lease. This Court observed thus: (SCC p. 496, para 14)
“14. It is pertinent to note that the word used is ‘extension’ and not ‘renewal’. To extend means to enlarge, expand, lengthen, prolong, to carry out further than its original limit. Extension, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means
HC-KAR
enlargement of the main body; addition to something smaller than that to which it is attached; to lengthen or prolong. Thus extension ordinarily implies the continued existence of something to be extended. The distinction between ‘extension’ and ‘renewal’ is chiefly that in the case of renewal, a new lease is required, while in the case of extension the same lease continues in force during additional period by the performance of the stipulated act.”
30. The same view was reiterated by this Court in State of U.P. v. Lalji Tandon wherein it was observed as under: (SCC pp. 8-9, para 13)
“There is a difference between an extension of lease in accordance with the covenant in that regard contained in the principal lease and renewal of lease, again in accordance with the covenant for renewal contained in the original lease. In the case of extension it is not necessary to have a fresh deed of lease executed, as the extension of lease for the term agreed upon shall be a necessary consequence of the clause for extension. However, option for renewal consistently with the covenant for renewal has to be exercised consistently with the terms thereof and, if exercised, a fresh deed of lease shall have to be executed between the parties. Failing the execution of a fresh deed of lease, another lease for a fixed term shall not come into existence though the principal lease in spite of the expiry of the term thereof may continue by holding over for year by year or month by month, as the case may be.”
(emphasis in original)
31. Having regard to these decisions we must hold that in order to give effect to the renewal of a lease, a document has to be executed evidencing the renewal of
HC-KAR
the agreement or lease, as the case may be, and there is no concept of automatic renewal of lease by mere exercise of option by the lessee. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission urged on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs that by mere exercise of option claiming renewal, the lease stood renewed automatically and there was no need for executing a document evidencing renewal of the lease.”
18. Therefore, the defendant has never intended to
renew the lease. Further, there is no clause that accruing legal right for the plaintiff to get renewal of lease period. Therefore, absolutely the plaintiff does not have any legal right to get renewal of lease period. Merely there is an entry in the clause and an option is given to the plaintiff for seeking renewal of lease period for further period of 5 years that shall not accrue the legal right in favour of plaintiff for seeking renewal of lease. Further, the relief claimed by the plaintiff is for a decree of specific performance of direction against the defendant to renew the lease period for further 5 years from 16.02.2016 to 15.02.2021. Therefore, the last date for extension of lease period on 16.02.2021 has already lapsed, that means even
HC-KAR
if the suit is decreed in toto in favour of plaintiff, there could not be any executable decree in favour of the plaintiff.
HC-KAR
the same, the plaintiff has preferred Special Leave Petition in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.8226-8227/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the special leave petition and confirmed the judgment and decree passed for ejectment. When this being the chronological events and legal recourse is taken, the plaintiffs knew very well that though there is no legal right accrued as per lease deed bu t by filing another suit, sought for relief of specific performance for extension of lease. Therefore, the Trial Court observed that when the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of extension of lease period as there is no legal right accrued and prayer made in the suit has become infructuous. Hence, there is no question of filing another suit for the same relief. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in dismissing the suit.
HC-KAR
issues framed when the suit has become infructuous and having been dismissed, answering all the issues is nothing but a futile exercise. Although, upon considering the issues framed on merits, the plaintiff is not entitled for seeking renewal of lease for a period of 5 years after 35 years and also the notice dated 24.04.2017 terminating the tenancy of plaintiff is found to be legal and correct as the lease is executed for 35 years and no legal right is accrued for extension of the lease period, therefore issuance of notice of termination of tenancy for six months is found to be correct and legal one. The plaintiff cannot seek renewal of lease as a matter of right.
NC: 2026:KHC:29081 RFA No. 1788 of 2022
HC-KAR
suit as having become infructuous. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal. A ccordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) and (iii)
in the Negative and point No.(ii) in the Affirmative Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The Regular First Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
KA,UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff had a legal right to renewal of the lease for five years from 16.02.2016 under clause (iv) of the lease deed?
Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation?
Whether the trial court's dismissal of the suit on the preliminary issue as infructuous required interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Venkatesh R. Desai vs. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani and othersReferred
AIR 2019 KARNATAKA 47 · Who else cites this
Smt. V. Lalitha vs. K.H.Puttaswamy GowdaReferred
ILR 2024 KAR 19 · Who else cites this
Prithvi Raj Jhingta vs. Gopal SinghReferred
LAWS(HPH)-2006-9-1
Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and CompanyApplied¶17
(2007) 5 SCC 614 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Patel Industrial Corporation
Sri C. Purushotham
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
