PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. MANORAM AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the tenant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 1999 whereby the suit filed by the landlord for eviction and recovery of rent, damages and mesne profit was decreed for eviction and for cost of notice and the defendants were directed to vacate the premises and deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiffs within three months.

(2.) SCC Suit No. 9 of 1996 had been filed impleading Punjab and Sind bank, through its Manager, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Bank)as defendant No. 2. While M/s. Manoram Agencies through its partner Smt. Rajni Tandon was Plaintiff No. 1, the other partner of the said firm Smt. Rajni tandon, Sri Harish Tandon and Smt. Padma Tandon were arrayed as plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4. The plaint was filed with the allegation that M/s. Manoram agencies had let out a portion of building No. 34, M. G. Marg, Allahabad to the bank on a monthly rent of Rs. 5677. 88 besides water tax; that the building let out to the Bank was exempted from the operation of the Uttar Pradesh Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") in view of the provisions of section 2 (1) (g) of the Act since the rent of the building exceeded Rs. 2000/- per month; that the tenancy of the defendants was terminated by the notice dated 23rd April, 1996 which was sent by registered post and that as the defendants failed to comply with the terms of the said notice the cause of action for possession and recovery of rent and damages accrued in favour of the plaintiffs on or about 26th May, 1996 after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree of eviction of the defendants from the building be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed decree for Rs. 26,228. 94 towards rent at the admitted rate, damages for vise and occupation till the date of filing of Suit and cost of notice and decree for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per day.

(3.) A written statement was filed on behalf of the Bank. It was admitted that M/s. Manoram Agencies was the landlord of the portion of the building which was under its tenancy. It was, however, stated that the matter relating to enhancement of rent was pending adjudication in Writ Petition No. 40333 of 1996 and W. P. No. 404 of 1997 that had been filed by M/s. Manoram Agencies and the Bank respectively and that the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 2 (1) (g) of the Act was also under consideration of this Court in writ Petition No. 41312 of 1996 that had been filed by the Bank. It was also asserted that the notice dated 23rd April, 1996 was illegal and ineffective and the plaintiffs had no right to terminate the tenancy of the defendant Bank and that since the cause of action in the present case was based on the aforesaid illegal notice, the suit itself was liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further asserted that previously the landlord had let out the building to the tenant M/s. Manoram Agencies and sub-sequently an application under section 25 (2) of the Act was moved by the tenant for permission to sub-let a portion under its tenancy to the defendant Bank; that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 26th May, 1975 granted permission to sub-let the portion under section 25 (2) of the Act and sub-sequently the premises were let out to the Bank on 1st February, 1976; that section 2 (1) (g) of the Act is not applicable in the present case as it contemplates rent paid by the main tenant to the landlord and not the amount paid by the sub-tenant to the tenant; that as sub-letting can be done by the tenant with the permission in writing of the landlord and the Rent Control and Eviction officer, the lease cannot be determined unilaterally without the permission in writing of the landlord and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer; that the rent envisaged under section 2 (1) (g) of the Act means the rent fixed by the Rent control and Eviction Officer in the allotment proceeding and not by way of a private arrangement between the tenant and the sub-tenant and in the present case, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not fixed any rent; that the plaintiffs had earlier filed an application under section 21 (8) of the Act for enhancement of the rent but in the present suit, they have alleged that the provisions of the Act were not applicable and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages since the dispute with regard to the enhancement of monthly rent was pending in the two writ petitions. The Judge Small Cause courts framed the following points for determination:-