Lease expiry and unauthorised occupation: rent acceptance without written renewal does not revive rights, and transferee gets no better title.

A lease that expires by efflux of time and can be renewed only in the manner required by the lease deed and governing statutory provisions is not renewed merely because rent is accepted after expiry. Such acceptance does not amount to assent to holding over, and occupation after expiry becomes unauthorised where the property is public premises. A person claiming through the original lessee cannot acquire a better right by compromise decree, sale deed, or substitution under Order 22 Rule 10 if the transferor had no subsisting title or transferable interest. The Court therefore treated both the lessee's claim and the transferee's claim as unenforceable against the lessor.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the original lessee acquired any right in the property after expiry and termination of the lease by payment and acceptance of rent without written renewal under the lease deed and the governing statutory framework; (ii) Whether the respondent acquired any right by substitution in place of the original lessee on the basis of a compromise decree and sale deed executed during pendency of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the original lessee acquired any right in the property after expiry and termination of the lease by payment and acceptance of rent without written renewal under the lease deed and the governing statutory framework.

Analysis: The lease expired by efflux of time and renewal was permissible only in the manner contemplated by the lease deed and the applicable statutory provisions governing disposal of nazul land. The original lessee had applied for renewal, but the lessor did not grant it and had issued notices pointing out breaches. Mere acceptance of rent after expiry of the lease period did not amount to assent to continuation of the lease or automatic renewal. The property was public premises, and after expiry of the lease the occupation became unauthorised within the meaning of the Public Premises Act. The earlier findings treating the termination notice as invalid were therefore contrary to the lease conditions and the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The original lessee did not acquire any enforceable right in the property after expiry of the lease, and the issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent acquired any right by substitution in place of the original lessee on the basis of a compromise decree and sale deed executed during pendency of the appeal.

Analysis: Once the lease had not been renewed and the original lessee had no subsisting right, title, or interest, he could not validly transfer the property to the respondent. A substitution under Order 22 Rule 10 could not confer a better title than that possessed by the transferor. The conversion charges deposited by the respondent did not create any legal right in the absence of a valid subsisting lease or transferable interest.

Conclusion: The respondent acquired no enforceable right in the property by substitution or transfer, and this issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments were unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to possession and consequential monetary reliefs in respect of the unauthorised occupation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a lease expires by efflux of time and the governing contract or statute requires a written renewal, mere acceptance of rent does not by itself amount to renewal or holding over; a transferee from an occupant without subsisting title acquires no enforceable right against the lessor.

---