PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. MUKUL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is by a tenant bank to the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.1.2011 whereby the suit of the respondent/landlord for possession has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

(2.) THE fact that there is a relation of landlord and tenant between the parties was/is an admitted fact. It is also not a disputed fact that as per the original lease deed, the lease was for a period of three years plus three years plus three year plus one year and which period came to an end on 15.3.2010. I may note that the registered lease was only for the original period of three years. There was an earlier litigation between the parties and as per which a fresh lease deed was to be executed for three years from 16.3.2006, which however was not executed. The respondent/landlord had also terminated the tenancy by notice dated 19.2.2010 which is admittedly received by the appellant. The appellant/tenant/bank has thus as on date overstayed its welcome in the suit premises by over one year, assuming that there was a registered lease for 10 years, and in fact the trial Court has been more than liberal in granting further time to the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 10.1.2011 to vacate the premises by 10.7.2011.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Puran Chand Packaging Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Sona Devi 2008 (154) DLT 111 in which it was held that acceptance of rent after termination of tenancy would or would not amount to a waiver of a notice to terminate the tenancy is a disputed fact which requires trial and it was therefore argued in this case on behalf of the appellant that since the respondent/landlord has received rent for two months after 15.3.2010 consequently a fresh tenancy came into existence and which aspect requires evidence to be led and therefore the impugned judgment passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC cannot be sustained. I note that the trial Court has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh & Ors. 128 (2006) DLT 534 (SC): 2006 (4) SCC 205 and as per which judgment, the Supreme Court has held that merely and only because rent is received after termination of tenancy will not imply creation of a fresh tenancy and the landlord is very much entitled to take charges for use and occupation after termination of tenancy and the rent paid by the tenant can be treated as paid towards charges for use and occupation. Counsel for the respondent states that payment which was made by the appellant, and that was for just two months, has been taken as charges for use and occupation. Para 7 of the decision in the case of Sarup Singh (supra) is relevant and the same reads as under:-