RAJ GOPAL HUF Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit property being No.22/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, and also for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation and for recovery of arrears. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the owners of the entire mezzanine floor and the entire ground floor of suit property No.22/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and the plaintiff is acting through its Karta Shri Raj Gopal. The defendant bank is a tenant to the extent of 1544.01 Sq. Ft. on the Mezzanine floor and to the extent of 1623.07 Sq. Ft. on the ground floor, thus making a total of 3167.08 Sq. Ft. of the said suit property. The said property was let out to the defendant bank in the month of February 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.23,878.40 in terms of the communication of the defendant bank dated 15/5/1979 read with the letter dated 11/5/1981 for a period of 5 years. A lease deed was required to be executed between the parties. But it is an admitted position that no lease deed was either executed or registered between the plaintiff and the defendant bank. On 27/4/1991 a meeting was held between the plaintiff and the officials of the defendant bank wherein it was agreed that lease deed would be executed for an initial period of 5 years i.e. from 1981 to 1986 and from 1986 the bank would increase the rent by 25% and a fresh lease deed will be executed relating to period 1986 to 1991 with options for renewal. Subsequent thereto also several other meetings took place between the plaintiff and the defendants wherein also it was agreed that the defendant bank would enhance the monthly rent and that fresh lease deed would be executed between the parties. However, in pursuance of the aforesaid discussions no lease deed came to be executed between the parties nor the rent for the suit premises came to be enhanced. The plaintiff however, issued legal notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy of the bank and requiring the defendant bank to handover and convey vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. The defendant bank having failed to do so the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff.

(2.) The suit is contested by the defendant by filing a written statement. The suit is contested mainly on two counts namely - that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property and therefore, the suit could not have been instituted by the plaintiff. The next defence which is taken by the defendant in the written statement is that the legal notice served by the plaintiff is premature and issued by a third party and the same is also not properly and validly served. It is also stated that pursuant to the agreement arrived at between the parties the defendant is entitled to renewal of the lease and therefore, no decree for eviction could be passed against the defendant.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties the six issues were framed on 21/8/1997. Subsequent to the aforesaid position the plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for a decree for possession of the suit property on the basis of admission contained in the written statement filed by the defendant. The aforesaid application is opposed by the defendant on the ground that no admission has been made by the defendant in its written statement. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the defendant that the written statement does not contain any admission also for passing a decree for the remaining prayers including that of payment of mesne profits, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree and the suit is required to be put up for trial, particularly when issues have already been framed in the suit.