UCO BANK Vs. RAM PRAKASH KAKKAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 10.04.2013 of the Additional District Judge (Central) -17, Delhi in Suit No. 315 of 2011 (Unique ID No. 02401C1204902008) filed by the respondents, against the appellant Bank for ejectment of the appellant Bank from the premises earlier in its tenancy under the respondents and for mesne profits; the appellant during the pendency of the suit agreed to vacate the premises and to hand over vacant, peaceful physical possession thereof to the respondents on or before 31.12.2010 and the suit continued qua the claim of the respondents for mesne profits only; the impugned judgment and decree is for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation with effect from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2010 at the rate of Rs. 60,680/ - per month less the agreed amount of Rs. 34,935.64p already paid by the appellant Bank; interest at 12% per annum has also been awarded on the arrears of mesne profits. The appeal came up first before this Court on 16.07.2013 when finding the controversy to be within a narrow compass, the Trial Court record was requisitioned and the counsel for the appellant Bank asked to inform the counsel for the respondents before the trial court also of today's date.

(2.) THE trial court record has been received. Though the counsel for the respondents appears but without even the suit file and states that he is not prepared to argue. However adjournment is deemed inappropriate and the counsel for the appellant Bank has been heard and the trial court record perused.

(3.) THE appellant Bank contested the suit filing a written statement inter alia pleading, (i) that there were other legal heirs also besides the respondents/plaintiffs of the deceased landlords; (ii) that the tenancy had not been determined in accordance with law; (iii) that the determination if any of the tenancy had been waived; (iv) that the appellant Bank's tenancy of the premises is to continue so long as the appellant Bank continued to pay the rent; (v) that the parking area in the tenancy of the appellant Bank was being used by the respondents also for their commercial purposes as they kept their tandoor and other material for preparation of food and also parked their motorcycle therein; (vi) that the letters/notice of the respondents asking the appellant Bank to vacate the premises and terminating the tenancy of the appellant Bank had not been received by the appellant Bank; (vii) that the prevalent rent in the area was Rs. 30/ - to Rs. 35/ - per sq. ft. per month; and, (viii) that the premises were residential in nature though being used by the appellant Bank for its branch.