STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. H.C.TAKYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as issue in both the appeals is the same. The judgment which is impugned by the appellant-bank in RFA No.6/2004 is the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2003 decreeing the suit of the respondents/landlords for possession and mesne profits. The self-same judgment impugned by the appellant-bank in RFA No.36/2004 is the judgment by which the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant-bank was dismissed and by which suit it was prayed that a lease for an additional five years period be executed of the tenanted premises from 1.8.1998 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff- bank. The impugned judgment which is appealed in both the RFAs is a common judgment decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits of the landlords/respondents and dismissing the suit for specific performance filed by appellant-bank.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant-bank took on lease the suit premises being the basement and ground floor of the premises B-10, Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi from the respondents/landlords under a lease deed dated 5.8.1993. As per the terms and conditions of this lease deed, the lease was for a period of five years with an option to take an additional lease for a period of five years, subject to the condition that the option to renew the lease is exercised at least three months before ending of the period of five years on 31.7.1998. Whereas the appellant-bank contended that the option was, in fact, exercised by a letter dated 6.4.1998, the Trial Court has disbelieved this letter seeking extension of lease as the said document was held as not to be a genuine document.

(3.) A reference to the aforesaid paras shows that the Trial Court has disbelieved the letter dated 6.4.1998 on the ground that the UPC which is relied upon by the appellant-bank is not believable. The Trial Court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gadakh Y.K. vs. Bala Sahib, AIR 1994 SC 678 that it is easy to procure certificate of postings and therefore UPCs cannot inspire any confidence. The Trial Court has arrived at a finding that the appellant-bank failed to bring and file any dispatch register or relevant records to show proof of dispatch of the letter dated 6.4.1998. The Trial Court has also referred to the fact that the authenticity of the letter dated 6.4.1998 is doubtful because this letter is not referred to by the bank in its communications dated 11.9.1998, Ex.PW2/7 and the reply to notice vide letter dated 29.9.1998.