RAVINDER MADAN Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of I.A. 10931 99 filed under Order XII Rule 6 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff for passing decree of possession against the defendant in respect of portion shown in red in the site plan annexed of property bearing No.32, Khan Market. New Delhi.

(2.) Suit for possession and mesne profits were filed, interalia, alleging that under a registered lease deed dated 31/08/1987 the plaintiff had let out ground a first floors of property No.32, Khan Market for a period of years with effect from 12/02/1986 on a monthly rent 7562.50 to the defendant bank. The plaintiff vide notice dated 07/02/1991 which was served on the defendant on about 10/02/1991 called upon it to handover physic possession of the tenanted premises on expiry of lease period on 11/02/1991. However, instead of vacating the premises the defendant bank filed suit for injunction being No. 633/91 against the plaintiff and his brother Narender Nath Madan seeking to restrain them in any way interfering with its enjoyment and possession of the tenanted premises and other portions of property bearing No.33, Khan Market owned by the plaintiff's said brother. It is further alleged that the plaintiff also filed Suit No. 700/92 against the defendant bank for possession and mesne profits. During the pendency of said suits negotiations for amicable settlement were negotiated. The defendant vide letter dated 07/08/1993 proposed the terms of settlement. One of the terms of settlement contained in this letter and subsequent correspondence exchanged between the parties, was that the defendant bank will vacate the first foor premises and plaintiff will handover possession of front verandah on the ground floor after covering the same at his own cost to the defendant. Defendant vacated the first floor premises and the plaintiff after covering handed over possession of front verandah to the defendant on 01/11/1993. However, inspite of part implementation of compromise the defendant bank avoided to execute the lease deed and to implement rest of the terms of settlement. It is further alleged that the defendant bank unilaterally decided to make payment of the front verandah portion only with effect from 01/04/1994. Further, the defendant bank took an unjustified stand that there shall be two separate tenancies - one in respect of the portion on ground floor which was initially let out and the other in regard to portion which was delivered to it after covering front verandah on 01/11/1993, Not only that, the defendant bank wanted the period in respect of two tenancies to be different. In the circumstances, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code on 04/04/1995 in the suit which was pending before an Additional District Judge, Delhi. The defendant did not file any reply to the said application and on 13/12/1996 when the suit was listed it took the stand before the Additional District Judge that it was ready to execute the Additional District Judge that it was ready to execute the lease deed and same could not be executed because of the lapse on part of plaintiff. The stand taken by the defendant was totally baseless. Believing the representation made by the defendant the Additional District Judge stayed the proceedings in the suit sine die vide order dated 13/12/1996. In Civil Revision being No. 122/97 filed by the plaintiff, said order dated 13/12/1996 was set aside by this court and said suit is still pending disposal. The defendant was making payment @ 15,310.50 per month though as per settlement arrived at between the parties it should have started making the payment @ Rs. 19,742.80 per month with effect from February 1996. It is stated that the tenancy of defendant has been terminated with effect from 31/05/1998 and it is now liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 3 lakhs per month in addition to delivering the possession of the said premises which is in its unauthorised occupation, to the plaintiff.

(3.) In the suit aforesaid I.A. 10931/99 came to be filed on 13/10/1999 claiming the relief of possession.