' Eviction of the petitioners from the shop in dispute was ordered by the learned Rent Controller and the appeal of the petitioners tenants was also dismissed vide judgment, dated 30-7-1983 of the learned Additional District Judge. These eviction orders are under challenge in this constitution petition on the ground that though in the rent note the period of tenancy was stated to be 11 months yet in Exh. R. 2 the period of tenancy agreed upon was five years extendable for a further period of five years. It was argued that the notes made on Exh.R.2 were admitted by the respondent-landlord to be in his handwriting. On these premises, it was stated that the learned Courts below were not justified in directing ejectment on the ground of personal need as the period of tenancy had not yet expired.
2. I have gone through the record of the trial Court and have also heard the counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, period of five years has expired and the amount of Rs.50,000 advanced by the petitioners to the respondent-landlord, whether as advance rent or as a loan, stands already adjusted in a period of five years. If the tenancy was for a period of five years, that period has elapsed. The further allegation that the tenancy was extendable for a further period of five years is not borne out even from pencil notes appearing on Exh.R.2. It is pertinent to note that this plea was not taken in the written statement filed. In these circumstances, it cannot be urged successfully that according to the agreed terms the period of five years was extendable to a further period of five years. The period of tenancy having expired, the respondent-landlords had a right to seek eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal need.
3. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Rent Controller was Civil Judge 3rd Class and, as such, had no jurisdiction to deal with the rent matters. He, however, conceded that in PLD 1966 Lah. 268 a Division Bench of this Court has held to the contrary. There is no merit in this submission.
No other point was argued. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed in limine. This being the shop, learned counsel for the respondents states that the landlords have no objection to the grant of two months' further time to the petitioners to deliver the possession of the shop in dispute. The execution shall not take place for a further period of two months from today.