ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. SHAKUNTLA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the owner of 2955 square feet built up area on the ground and mezzanine floor forming part of property bearing No.82, Janpath, on October 01, 2008 Late Ms.Shakuntala Gupta (the mother of the respondents) executed a lease-deed in respect of the property. The lessee was the Bank of Rajasthan, authorized representative whereof was the cosignatory to the lease-deed. The lease-deed was duly registered and the duration of the lease was 15 years with rent to be increased every 5 years by 20%. Being relevant to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and its rebuttal thereto by the learned counsel for the respondents, we need to note the description of the parties to the lease-deed and clauses 3, 10 and 26 thereof. They read as under:-

(2.) Late Smt.Shakuntala Gupta filed CS (OS) No.874/2011 pleading therein that the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. had sublet, assigned and parted with the possession of the leased premises to ICICI Bank Ltd. It was pleaded that Bank of Rajasthan had stopped paying rent since January, 2011. She pleaded that she did not receive the rent tendered by ICICI Bank Ltd. because said bank had no relationship with her. She pleaded that by a notice dated February 01, 2011 she called upon the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ICICI Bank Ltd. to vacate the tenanted premises and since there was a failure to vacate the tenanted premises she was constrained to sue for possession as also recovery of damages for the period post the possession became unauthorized as per her.

(3.) In the written statement filed by ICICI Bank, the averments made in the plaint regarding letting of the premises to the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. at an initial rent of Rs. 7,61,500/- per month was admitted. The terms of the lease-deed dated October 01, 2008 were admitted. It was pleaded that under a scheme of amalgamation which was duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India, the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. merged with ICICI Bank Ltd. It was pleaded that in this manner ICICI Bank Ltd. became the successor of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Relying upon the lease-deed dated October 01, 2008, wherein the lessor and the lessee were described, it was highlighted that describing the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. as the lessee it was made clear that the expression 'lessee' shall be deemed to mean and include its successors and permitted assigns. It was pleaded that the amalgamation had a statutory and legislative character (and by this plea we understand that the intention was to plead that the amalgamation was statutory). It was pleaded, assuming that clause 10 of the lease-deed was violated, it did not entitle Shakuntala Devi to terminate the lease because the clause does not stipulate that on breach of said condition Shakuntala Devi had a right to terminate the lease. It was pleaded that the amalgamation of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. with ICICI Bank Ltd. was with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India and therefrom the legal argument was advanced that the merger of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. with ICICI Bank Ltd. was the consequence of law and thus there was no assignment of the tenancy right.