P L VERMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed a suit claiming possession of the tenanted premises no. A-18, G. T. Karnal Road Industrial Area and for recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs. 5,24,949/ -. The plea of the petitioner was that the above premises was let out to the defendant/respondent by a lease deed dated 30. 3. 1995. The petitioner terminated the lease by serving a notice dated 21. 3. 1997 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and after termination of lease, the premises was not vacated, thus the petitioner had to file a suit. However, the plea taken by the defendant in the WS was that the lease deed was executed for a period of five years with an option of renewal of lease for a further period of five years on the same terms and conditions after 25% enhancement of the rent on the expiry of the first block of five years. The lease could not be terminated prior to the expiry of period of lease and the notice dated 21. 3. 1997 served upon the petitioner under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not a valid notice, since it was served within first five years block of absolute tenancy.

(2.) THE petitioner moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC stating therein that since even as per admission of the respondent/defendant, the extended period of lease had expired, a decree for possession be passed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff forthwith pending adjudication of other issues. The learned ADJ vide its order dated 21. 3. 2007 disposed of the application observing that the application was liable to be dismissed as issues in this case had already been framed and it would be in the fitness of things, if the controversy between the parties is decided on merits once for all. He further observed that if the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was allowed, it would lead to unwarranted multiplicity of proceedings between the parties. The expiry of lease deed, in question, did not constitute any clear, unequivocal and unambiguous admission of the defendant. Hence, this petition assailing the order of the learned ADJ.

(3.) IN reply to this application, it was not denied that 10 years period as alleged by the defendant in the WS, had expired, the only plea taken was that no notice of termination of tenancy had been served by the plaintiff to the defendant after 31. 3. 2005 and since no notice had been served, possession of tenant continues to be authorized and the defendant/respondent could not be directed to handover possession of the property.