BHUNESHWAR PRASAD Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants and respondents 3 to 7 are owners and landlords of the premises in question. United Commercial Bank-respondent No. 1 is the tenant. Respondent No. 2 is an officer of the bank.

(2.) A suit seeking a decree of eviction of the bank from the premises was filed by the owners. It has been, inter alia, alleged in the plaint that the Bank was inducted as a tenant in the premises for a fixed period of five years commencing from 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1986 through a registered deed of lease. The bank was given an option to get the lease renewed for two terms of five years each provided it gives notice for renewal of the lease each time one month prior to the expiration of the period of lease. The bank exercised this option one month prior to 31st March, 1986 and accordingly the lease was renewed for the period from 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1991 at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,876/-. It seems that before 31st March, 1991, the bank did not exercise option for renewal of the lease. The bank was asked to vacate the premises by 31st May, 1991 under plaintiff's letter dated 22nd April, 1991. Now, the bank by letter dated 24th April, 1991 requested the plaintiffs for renewal of lease but the plaintiffs did not agree and requested for vacation of the premises. It has also been stated in the plaint that after expiry of lease on 31st March, 1991, the bank used to deposit the rent in the account of the plaintiffs in their branch but that was without their consent, and mere payment of rent without consent would not create any fresh tenancy. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the owners sought eviction of the bank on the sole ground of expiry of the period of the lease under Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) The suit was resisted by the bank, inter alia, pleading that the bank has been in occupation of the premises as tenant since 1963 and from time to time the rent has been enhanced. The bank has claimed to be a tenant month to month. The bank pleaded that it regularly deposited the rent in the account of the plaintiffs and they were withdrawing the rent so deposited every month after 31st March, 1991 at the enhanced rate of rent of Rs. 13,595/- per month in place of Rs. 10,876/-. The bank pleaded that the amount is being paid as monthly rent as per its letter dated 7th September, 1991 addressed to the owners and after discussion, they agreed to receive the said enhanced rent and are withdrawing the same. It has thus been claimed that the bank is not tenant for any fixed term period but is a monthly tenant.