LAWS(DLH)-1996-5-59

STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. CHANDERMOHAN

Decided On May 24, 1996
STATE BANK OF PATIALA Appellant
V/S
CHANDERMOHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State Bank of Patiala (deft.) against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge by which he directed the appellant to deposit rent at Rs. 1,02, 600.00 p.m. with effect from 1.11.1990. The respondents are the landlords. Admittedly, the building was under seal from 15.10.1990 by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ("NDMC"). Later the NDMC desealed the premises in May, 1991 and when this appeal came up for hearing before us, the appellant Bank was having possession of the building, though the appellant Bank was not putting the building to any use and had hired another building at huge rent.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondents in 1993 for eviction of the appellant (deft. 1), and for recovery of Rs. 24,62,400.00 towards arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.10.1992 and for damages and mesne profits. The lease in favour of the appellant is dated 1 .10.1983 in respect of the second and mezzanine floors of the building known as Regal Building (East), New Delhi, admeasuring 8000 square feet on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,02.6GO.00 for 5 years. It was executed by the 2nd deft. who sold the premises to plaintiffs. It was subject to renewal for a further period of 5 years, and to increase in rent by 20%. All taxes, levies and charges imposed by the Local Bodies were payable by the tenant. The appellant Bank attorned to the plaintiffs.

(3.) According to the pff. the appellant stopped paying rent from 1.11.1990 on the "pretext" of the roof having fallen down and according to the pff. the appellant tenant was responsible for the damage to the building inasmuch as the appellant was not permitting the owners to conduct repairs to the building. In spite of several requests, the appellant did not handover possession to the respondents. The appellant Bank got the building sealed by the NDMC from 15.10.i990 u/Ss. 113, 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Though the plaintiffs obtained permission for conducting repairs, the appellant Bank refused to give possession to the owners for conducting repairs.