CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RANE PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is yet another case where a tenant on the grounds untenable, is trying to avoid its liability to pay full rent due for the premises let. The tenant is the Central Bank of India. The landlords are Shri Rane Parkash, Shri Rajiv Prakash and Smt.Shan Parkash.

(2.) It so happened that on December 30, 1998, a registered 'Rent Deed' was executed between the parties. With a view to remove any ambiguity and to delineate the premises actually let, a site plan was attached which formed an integral part of the 'Rent Deed'. As per the terms of the 'Rent Deed' the premises let were known as 'Japan Hall' and 'Gujarat Hall'. Admittedly, the monthly rent was agreed to be Rs.50/- per sq. ft. Since as per the landlords the Bank was in arrears of rent they filed a suit for recovery of Rs.34,98,130.00 claiming the same to be due. The suit was instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Bank was sent summons of the same. Upon service of summons the Bank entered appearance on February 15, 2002, i.e., within 10 days of the service and furnished two addresses for further service of summons upon it. One of the addresses given was of the Advocate representing the bank, i.e., Shri R.N.Gupta & Company, 121, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi and the other of the office of the Bank situated at 72, Janpath, New Delhi. Thereafter, the landlords took out summons for judgment under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was served upon the bank through its Advocate on May, 17 2002 and through its Assistant General Manager at its office on May 18, 2002. Two days thereafter, i.e., on May 20,2002 plaintiff No.3 in the original suit, namely, Smt.Shan Parkash died. Accordingly, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved on behalf of other plaintiffs for brining on record her legal representatives. Notice of the said application was served on the Bank but no reply to the same was filed. Hence, vide order dated January 24, 2003, the application was allowed and the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.3 Smt.Shan Parkash were brought on record. It was after more than 10 months of service of 'Summons for Judgment' on the bank that it applied for leave to defend. This was done by filing an affidavit on March 20,2003 alongwith an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) & (7) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay in seeking leave to defend.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after hearing the matter, and finding no ground to condone the delay in applying for leave to defend, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and proceeded to pass a decree in favour of the landlords and against the Bank taking the area of the premises to be as delineated in the site plan. Hence, this appeal.