PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. GANGA NARAIN KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision application under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act from the judgment and decree dated 23-11-1992 passed by III Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's claim for decree for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-revisionist, in the S.C.C. Suit No. 28 of 1987 (Ganga Narain Kapoor v. Punjab National Bank).

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed the suit for a decree for recovery of rent and ejectment with the allegations to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the house in dispute, in a part of which Hindustan Commercial Bank had been in occupation as a tenant on monthly rental of Rs. 2,550.00. The plaintiff further alleged that the building in dispute has been a new construction and it was for the first time assessed to the municipal tax by Nagar Mahapalika w.e.f. 1/04/1979 and, as such, the plaintiff alleged that the building in dispute or to say that the accommodation in dispute was not subject to the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and that the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply thereto. The plaintiff further alleged that with the passage of time Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. i.e. defendant-Bank merged into the Punjab National Bank and the Punjab National Bank stepped into the shoes of Hindustan Commercial Bank, in other words, the old entity of Hindustan Commercial Bank merged into Punjab National Bank and thus Punjab National Bank the defendant has become, as well as occupies and continues to occupy the building in dispute, as a tenant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that as plaintiff required the said building for his own user and so plaintiff gave a notice dated 2-12-87 to the defendant demanding the arrears of rent as well as the determining the tenancy on the expiry of the period of the notice of determination of lease and required the defendant to hand-over the vacant possession of the suit property, after vacating the same, to the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant according to plaintiff's case in spite of the notice of termination of tenancy did neither pay the arrears of rent of damages nor did he vacate the accommodation or the building in question and so there did arise the need to file the suit for the reliefs, as mentioned above.