SURESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised in this appeal rests in narrow compass. In a suit for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits by the appellants, the respondent Canara Bank admittedly handed over the possession of the premises in question and paid the rent/occupation charges till the time possession was handed over to the appellants. The appellants have now claimed damages. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to the damages or not.

(2.) Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs before the trial court, filed a suit for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits against the Canara Bank pertaining to the ground floor of the property bearing No. 29/10, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The premises were let out to the bank on 19.3.1983 and thereafter the lease was extended from time to time and finally the lease was extended for a period of five years w.e.f 2.8.1993.

(3.) The case of the appellants is that the lease deed came to an end by efflux of time and finally by way of abundant caution a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served terminating the lease w.e.f 1.8.1998. The Canara Bank contested the claim of the appellants (plaintiffs) and filed a written statement.