DENA BANK Vs. KAMLESH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed against the judgment and preliminary decree in a suit for possession and recovery dated 14.09.2009 passed by the trial court on an application filed by the Respondent herein under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present appeal are that the Respondent had filed a suit for possession, recovery of amount of Rs. 10,41,360/ - as arrears of rent excluding all other charges, mesne profit along with the pendente lite interest @18% per annum against the Appellant. The Respondent is the absolute owner of the suit property bearing No. GL -16 -A, Hari Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi measuring 320 sq. yrds., approximately, comprising of ground floor and the first floor. The property was purchased by the Respondent from one Sh.R.L. Ratti vide sale deed dated 17.05.1979 duly registered with the Sub -Registrar -II, vide registration No. 3616 additional book No. I, volume No. 3417 at pages 82 -83. The Appellant Bank was inducted as a tenant vide lease deed dated 21.09.1984 for a period of five years in respect of part of portion of ground floor of the suit property measuring 2068 sq. fts. The lease has been renewed periodically and was last renewed vide lease deed dated 22.02.2003 duly registered with the Sub -Registrar -II vide registration No. 3941 in additional book No. -I, volume No. 10844 at pages 144 -152 for the period 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2007, for a period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 41,360/ - excluding all other charges. Invoking Sub -clause (m) of clause B of the lease deed dated 22.02.2003 the Respondent terminated the tenancy of the Appellant vide a legal notice dated 07.06.2007 which was issued by registered AD post and under certificate of posting. The legal notice was duly served on the Appellant, to which a reply was sent on 10.07.2007. Since the Appellant failed to hand over possession of the suit premises despite the legal notice having been issued and served, the Respondent was compelled to file a suit for recovery of possession and claimed other reliefs as well. The Appellant filed its written statement wherein various objections were raised. As per the written statement the Respondent had filed a suit only to exert undue pressure on the Appellant with a view to increase the rent; and that the Appellant being a lawful tenant as per the terms of the registered lease deed dated 22.02.2003 for an initial period of 5 years from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2007 with a stipulation that the lease could be further renewed for another period of five years from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2012 at the option of the Appellant herein, to be exercised not less than one calendar month before the expiry of the term of the lease i.e. 31.10.2007, subject only to increase in the rent by 25%. All other terms and conditions were to remain the same.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Appellant submits that learned trial court has erroneously passed a decree on the basis of the admissions made by the Appellant, whereas the Appellant in its written statement had categorically raised an objection to the Respondent's entitlement to determination of the lease, which objection was rejected on merits. It is also contended that the trial court has lost sight of the fact that the admissions must be unambiguous, equivocal and unqualified. It is contended by counsel for the Appellant that the order was passed by learned trial court in undue haste and that the trial court has failed to consider the objections of the Appellant and also has failed to read the provisions of the lease in harmony and in entirety.