PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. CHANDER MOHAN OBEROI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of the ground floor of premises no. G-22, NDSE, Part-I, New Delhi. This suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the Punjab National Bank by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11.7.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the bank has filed the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC').

(2.) According to the respondents they had leased the premises the aforestated premises having a carpet area measuring about 1326.15 square feet to the appellant in terms of a duly registered Lease Deed dated 17.8.1989 for a period of 3 years commencing from the date of execution of the Lease Deed with one option for renewal for a further period of 3 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- per square feet. The lessor vide letter dated 14.8.1997 had notified the lessee that the lease shall stand terminated by efflux of time with expiry of 3 years. However, the lessee exercised the option vide communication dated 12.8.1992 for renewal of the lease for a further period of 3 years in terms of the Lease Deed. According to the lessor, the lessee was not entitled to the extension and he even declined to accept the rent. Unfortunately, Sh. Nanak Chand Oberoi died on 26.11.1993 leaving behind all the respondents as his legal heirs. The Bank had acquired another premises being premises No. N-13, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi where they had shifted their major and substantial activities and staff. The Lessor requested the Bank to vacate the premises and vide letter dated 3.8.1995, requested that they should vacate the premises and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises by 16.8.1995. No response was received from the lessee resulting in issuance of another letter dated 17.8.1995 which clearly stated that though the Bank was not entitled to exercise of any option of renewal, but even taking the same as per the assertion of the Bank that it had one option for renewal, the said option had expired on 16.8.1995 and thus, the bank should immediately vacate the premises failing which they shall be liable to pay damages for the use and occupation of the premises on the market value which was estimated at Rs.10,000/- per day. A letter was written by the Bank on 29th/30th March, 1996 stating that the Bank was continuing as a contractual tenant in the property. This averment was refuted by the lessor. As the bank did not vacate the premises, the lessor filed the suit for recovery of possession and rent for the period 17.8.1992 to 16.8.1995 at the rate of Rs.14,587.65 aggregating to Rs.5,25,215.40 and also claimed damages for the use and occupation of the premises for the period of 17.3.1995 @ Rs.10,000/- per day till the date of vacation.

(3.) The suit was contested by the bank who besides taking certain preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the suit, also raised the plea that the bank is a contractual tenant as Sh. Nanak Chand Oberoi had agreed to lease out the premises in question for an indefinite period. It was also stated that the option had already been exercised in terms of the Lease Deed. Vide their letter dated 18.8.1992, the execution and the terms and conditions of the lease deed were not denied. It was stated that the bank had been forwarding cash orders towards rent but they were not encashed by the respondents. It was specifically pleaded that the respondents had no cause of action to institute the suit, the plaint was vague and the bank was not liable to be evicted. It was further stated that the rent was refused by the respondents themselves and it was further denied that the respondents were entitled to recover Rs.10,000/- per day as claimed, primarily for the reason that the said amount was not the rate prevalent in the market for such premises. The replication was also filed denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that the suit be dismissed. Vide its order dated 22.2.2000, the learned Single Judge framed the following issues:-