SHUKLA MALHOTRA Vs. VYASA BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In plaintiffs' suit for: (1) possession of their property, being Ist floor of the premises bearing no.E-34, Connaught Place, New Delhi, measuring 2230 Sq.ft., let out to the defendant bank, vide unregistered agreement of lease dated 1 February 1980 at a rental of Rs.10.00 per Sq.ft, initially for a period of five years with option to the defendant bank for renewal/extension for a further period of five years on 20% enhancement in rent, extended in 1985 and 1990, but terminated by notice dated 9 January 1995, w.e.f. midnight of 31 January 1995, and (2) for mesne profits w.e.f.February 1995, the plaintiffs have filed this application under Order XII Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code for a decree for possession against the defendant, directing it to deliver vacant peaceful possession of the premises on the plea that the defendant, in its written statement, had admitted its possession as a tenant and the receipt of notice dated 9 January 1995, under section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), terminating the tenancy, entitling the plaintiffs to a decree for possession of the premises.

(2.) Admitting letting of the premises to them by the plaintiffs as stated, their possession as tenant and the receipt of plaintiffs stated notice dated 9 January 1995, the defendant bank opposes the plaintiffs' application on the pleas that the said notice was duly replied by them on 23 January 1995; the tenancy was not a monthly tenancy but for a fixed term of five years as per lease dated 1 February 1980, with option to extend after five years; which was extended in exercise of the option in 1985 and 1990 per stipulations in the lease deed; the alleged termination of the tenancy by the plaintiffs is bad in law and the suit misconceived. The defendant claims that in April 1991 the plaintiffs had agreed in writing to the defendant's offer of enhancement in rent to Rs.18 per Sq.ft w.e.f. 1 February 1990 for a period of five years and thereafter by 25% to commence from 1 February 1995 on the terms in the agreement dated 1 February 1980; the defendant had performed their part by paying enhanced rent and, therefore, the plaintiffs' application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Sanjay Dua, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr.M.S. Dewan, learned counsel for the defendant, who have taken me through the pleadings and the documents filed.