ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2004 passed by the Court of the learned ADJ, Delhi whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

(2.) BRIEF conspectus of facts relevant for deciding the present appeal is that the respondent had leased his property bearing Khasra No. 754(1-4:1/2), Mahipalpur, New Delhi to the appellant bank vide lease dated 26.12.1990 for a period of five years renewable thereafter. That the lease came to an end on 26.12.2000 whereafter no fresh lease was executed between the parties but deliberations were going on between them to execute a fresh lease deed and through various letters exchanged between the appellant and the respondent various terms and conditions of the lease were being discussed. The main difference which arose was with regard to the date of execution of the fresh lease and the duration of the lease period. During these negotiations, the appellant bank continued in occupation of the leased premises and was paying rent at the old rate which was not acceptable to the respondent. Hence, consequently the respondent filed a suit for recovery which vide judgment dated 29.7.2004 was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 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 submits that the respondent never claimed eviction of the appellant from the tenanted premises and the respondent was forced to file a recovery suit against the appellant when despite various requests made by the respondent, the appellant failed to pay the enhanced rent. Counsel further submits that the earlier lease came to an end on 26.12.2000 and thereafter the appellant was required to pay the rent at the revised rate and the said revision in rent was agreed to by the appellant itself through its letters dated 15.03.2003 and 10.05.2003. Counsel thus submits that the appellant cannot take a somersault and resile from the stand as taken by it through its letters dated 15.03.2003 and 10.05.2003. Counsel also submits that the respondent has been insisting the appellant to execute a fresh lease deed but the appellant deliberately did not come forward to execute the same and, therefore, it was the appellant alone who was responsible for not coming forward to execute a fresh lease deed and now it cannot take advantage of the same for denying payment of rent at the revised rate. Counsel thus states that no fault can be found with the findings of the learned trial court which are based on the admissions of the appellant itself, so far the revision in rent is concerned.