STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GIRISH CHAND GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this revision the revisionist has challenged the judgment dated 29.11.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2012.

(2.) The revisionist is a Bank and tenant in the premises of respondents. The revisionist entered into contract with the respondents on 6.1.2006 and another contract on 22.8.2006. In both the contracts the validity of the period of the contract was till 31.3.2012. The tribunal has held that in view of the clear terms of the contract the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time on 31.3.2012. Although it has also recorded a finding that prior to the end of the contract i.e. 31.3.2012, a notice dated 23.1.2012 was also given to the tenant to vacate the premises. However, the said notice is being disputed.

(3.) It has been held that the tenancy of the said premises, by efflux of time, stood terminated on 31.3.2012 and thereafter the revisionist had no right to continue in the tenancy. So far as, this aspect of the matter is concerned, I do not see any error in the order of the tribunal. However, Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that since the revisionist is a Bank and is an institution of public utility and has also currency chest, therefore, to shift the bank an appropriate suitable place is required and to shift the currency chest also some time is required.