STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal filed under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 passed by the court of Ld. ADJ, Delhi in suit bearing No. 132/2005 wherein the suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 6,79,197/ - with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the respondent was allotted a plot bearing No. E -155, Kalkaji, New Delhi on lease basis by L & DO in the year 1971 and the ground floor of the said premises was let out to the appellant by the respondent in the same year. The premises were misused at the hands of the appellant and on representation, the appellant agreed to pay the misuser charges on a 50 -50 sharing basis upto December 1976 and thereafter agreed to bear the same exclusively. However, the appellant failed to deposit the same and the respondent paid the requisite amount to the L& DO. Hence a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,71,550 was filed by the respondent and which vide judgment dated 11.8.2006 was decreed in his favour for a sum of Rs. 6,79,197/ - with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) REFUTING the said submissions of the counsel for the appellant, counsel for the respondent states that under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed is 30 years so far any recovery by the Government is concerned and thus states that the suit filed by the respondent was not barred by limitation. Counsel also submits that the suit was filed by the respondent within three years from the date of deposit made by the respondent with the L & DO. On the second contention counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has paid the misuser charges in terms of the demand raised by the L& DO. Counsel also submits that it was the liability of the appellant to pay the entire misuser charges in terms of Clause II(d) of the lease deed but the said amount was not paid by the appellant. Counsel also submits that the appellant did not vacate the tenanted premises even despite the eviction order dated 4.6.1997 passed against the appellant. Counsel thus submits that the respondent was within his right to claim the said amount paid by him which was the sole liability of the appellant in terms of the lease deed.