H S CHEEMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit praying for a decree of possession by ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the said suit premises restored in favour of the plaintiff and also for a decree for mesne profits and damages for occupation of the suit premises @ Rs.51,645.00 per day subsequent to 1.4.1997 till the date of delivery of possession to the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaintiff No.l, who has recently retired from servece service in the Army together with plaintiff No.2 are the landlords in respect of the suit premises comprising the ground floor at 16, Channan Singh Park, and measuring 6064 Sq. Ft. of area. The said premises were let out the said premises to the defendant bank at a monthly rent of Rs.42,000.00 . In respect of the aforesaid tenancy a lease deed was also executed between the parties which is placed on record. The said lease deed is a registered document and it stipulates that suit premises have been let out to the defendant bank at a monthly rental of Rs.42,000.00 from 1.1.1994 to 31.3.1997.

(3.) In the said lease deed no clause has been incorporated giving an option to the defendant to seek for renewal of the tenancy. Plaintiffs served a notice dated 9.9.1996 on the defendant drawing the attention of the defendant to clause l(e) and II(j) of the lease deed calling upon the defendant that at the termination of the lease and determination thereof by efflux of time w.e.f. 31.3.1997 vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises be handed over to the plaintiff. Another notice was issued by the plaintiffs through their counsel dated 24.11.1996 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 31.8.1997 and drawing the attention of the defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on expiry of the tenancy period. The defendant however, did not reply to any of the aforesaid notices and the plaintiff again through their counsel served another notice dated 15.1.1997. It further appears from the record that a further notice dated 20.2.1997 was again issued through the counsel for the plaintiffs reiterating the contents of the earlier notices. It is also stated in the plaint that since the plaintiffs need the aforesaid premises for their own personal bonafide use after retirement of the plaintiff No.l from active service in the Army the aforesaid notices terminating the tenancy of the lease were issued to the defendant. Since the defendant failed to handover and deliver to the plaintiff vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs for the aforesaid reliefs.