ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri K. N. Gupta, senior counsel with Shri Praveen Newaskar, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. 2. This First Appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-10-2001 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 11-A/1998, whereby the suit filed against the appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been decreed. 3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the present respondents are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Basantilal Baraia and Gorelal Baraia. It was the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that Baraia complex situated on Tansen Road, Gwalior is a commercial complex belonging to the respondents and the plaintiffs used to let out the shop situated in the said complex. The defendant was in need of a building for starting the office of its Branch No. 3 and, therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents had given the shop situated in the said complex on rent and by proposal dated 30-9-1991 it was specifically mentioned that the plaintiffs would let out the shop at least for 3 years and rent by 15% would be enhanced after 3 years. The appellant/defendant had accepted the said proposal with certain modifications and the appellant/ defendant had accepted that the tenancy would be at least for a period of 3 years and, thereafter the rent shall be enhanced by 15%. Accordingly, on certain conditions, the shops were let out at the rate of Rs. 3.75 per square feet. The defendant/appellant had also insisted that the plaintiffs must carry out the changes as per the requirement of the defendant and only then they would accept the tenancy and during the negotiations, an impression was given to the plaintiffs that the tenancy would continue for a period of at least 10 years. The plaintiffs had also expressed that in case, the changes are made as per the requirement of the defendant then the shops would not be left suitable for letting out to any other persons and the plaintiffs would be required to spend at least two lakhs for the changes, thus, the then senior division officer and branch manager of the appellant had given an assurance that the tenancy would continue for a period of at least 10 years. The plaintiffs agreed to let out the premises to the defendant/ appellant and the letter of acceptance was also handed over to the appellant/defendant on 11-11-1991. Accordingly, 14 shops were let out to the defendant/appellant and three sets of washroom, wash basin etc. were constructed. The shutters were removed. Windows were constructed. Three phase electricity connection was installed and for making all such renovation, the plaintiffs had spent approximately two lakhs and the vacant possession of the premises was handed over to the defendant/appellant on 17-12-1991. By notice dated 1-3-1994 the defendant/appellant informed the plaintiffs/respondents that the tenancy is being terminated w.e.f. 1-5-1994 and the vacant possession of the premises shall be handed over to the plaintiffs/respondents by 30-4-1994. The plaintiffs objected to it but still the notice was not withdrawn. Accordingly, the suit was filed seeking mandatory injunction against the defendant/appellant for not vacating the premises. The plaint was later on amended and it was pleaded that the defendant/appellant has shifted their office to another building by taking the premises on rent at a higher rate. The defendant/appellant have put the lock on the premises, as a result of which, the plaintiffs have no access to the electricity meter, as a result of which, the other tenants are not getting water supply. Foul smell was coming from the washroom and the garbage left by the appellant/defendant is causing nuisance. There is a possibility that the submersible pump may get out of order because they are not in a position to use the same. The other tenants are also warning to vacate the premises. Since the intention of the plaintiffs was to construct their building to let out to the tenants and the disputed part of the building was modified for the use of the defendant/appellant and, therefore, the said portion has not been let out to anybody. 4. The appellant filed its written statement and pleaded that since the plaintiffs were not in a position to let out the shop, therefore, they had agreed to give the same to the appellant/defendant. The pleading that the plaintiffs have spent Rs. 2.00 lakhs was also denied. All other averments were denied. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues : – (i) Whether the defendant had executed an agreement to take the premises on rent at least for a period of 3 years. The pleading that the plaintiffs have spent Rs. 2.00 lakhs was also denied. All other averments were denied. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues : – (i) Whether the defendant had executed an agreement to take the premises on rent at least for a period of 3 years. (ii) Whether the defendant had assured that the rent would be enhanced by 15% after 3 years and tenancy would continue at least for a period of 10 years. (iii) Whether the tenancy was terminated prior to period of agreement and assurance and its effect. (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the electricity connection in their name. (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 11,160/- per month till December, 1994. (vi) Whether proper court fee has been paid. (vii) Relief and cost. The trial Court after recording the evidence decreed the suit. 6. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the appellant that there was neither any assurance nor any agreement to the effect that the tenancy shall continue for a period of at least 10 years and the rent would be enhanced by 15% after 3 years. 7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. 8. The record of the trial Court has been received in three parts and every part contains the index. The record of the trial Court does not contain the exhibits. Even none of the index mentions about the exhibits, whereas it appears from deposition-sheet of the plaintiff Basantilal (PW-1) that 33 documents were marked as exhibits. However, this Court still finds it convenient to decide the appeal on the basis of the evidence of Basantilal (PW-1). In paragraph 5 of the examination-in-chief this witness has specifically stated that the condition of tenancy for at least 3 years and, thereafter enhancement of rent at the rate of 15% after every 3 years was not in writing but it was assured. Thus, very basis on which the suit was filed was never reduced to writing and all other exhibits are not relevant to adjudicate the controversy. In paragraph 13 of the examination-in-chief, it is further stated by Basantilal (PW-1) that when the defendant had served a notice for vacating the premises and since they were adamant to vacate the premises, therefore, the suit was filed. In paragraph 13 of the examination-in-chief, it is further stated by Basantilal (PW-1) that when the defendant had served a notice for vacating the premises and since they were adamant to vacate the premises, therefore, the suit was filed. In paragraph 14, Basantilal (PW-1) has also stated that the premises was vacated and the locks were put by the defendant then he obtained a key from the Manager of defendant/appellant. This witness has admitted that no written instructions were given by the appellant to carry out the modification for the building and he had not engaged any engineer for doing so. He has further admitted that he had sold the shutters, which were removed. He has further admitted that no rent note was written. However, he had stated that the defendant had given in writing on a letter-pad which was not produced. This witness has further admitted that in Ex. P-4 by which the consent was given by the appellant, the period of tenancy has not been mentioned. He has further admitted that no agreement was executed between the parties. He further admitted that he is not in possession of any lease deed or rent note, according to which, the initial tenancy was at least for a period of 3 years. He has further admitted that he has no details of expenses which were incurred by him for modification of the building. He has further admitted that before letting out the building, he has not informed the appellant that the plaintiffs would be required to incur more expenses. He has further admitted that he has not visited the premises, which was let out to the appellant, therefore, he cannot tell the condition of the same. He has further admitted that the rent during which the appellant had remained in possession was paid. It appears that the defendant/appellant failed to produce any witness, as a result of which, his right was closed. 9. Thus, it is clear that there was no agreement in writing to the effect that the premises is let out at least for a period of 3 years with an assurance that the tenancy would continue at least for a period of 10 years with a stipulation that the rent would be enhanced by 15% after every 3 years. 9. Thus, it is clear that there was no agreement in writing to the effect that the premises is let out at least for a period of 3 years with an assurance that the tenancy would continue at least for a period of 10 years with a stipulation that the rent would be enhanced by 15% after every 3 years. It has been admitted by Basantilal (PW-1) that after serving the notice of vacating the premises, the appellant had vacated the premises and when he went to the Manager of the appellant to demand the keys the same were handed over to him. In absence of any contract, no tenant can be compelled to continue with the tenancy at the sweet will of the landlord. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the premises was let out to the appellant on the assurance of the appellant that the tenancy would be at least for a period of 10 years and the rent would be enhanced after every 3 years. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had ever carried out any modification in the building and they have also failed to prove the expenses which according to them were incurred. 11. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 23-10-2001 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 11-A/1998 is hereby set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed. 12. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The decree is withdrawn accordingly.