SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff landlady, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and order dated 17-2-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge exercising power of small causes courts in SCC suit no. 1 of 2001-Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. State Bank of India. The said suit was filed by the present applicant for ejectment against the defendant on the allegations that the possession of the ground floor of the building was delivered on 20-9-1991 and of the first floor on 1-1-1992 to the defendant Bank. It was let out at the rate of Rs. 2.45 per sq. metre. It was also agreed that there would be 25% of enhancement of rent after every five years. The tenancy was terminated by notice dated 25-6-2001, but the defendant Bank failed to vacate the disputed accommodation. A sum of Rs. 22,739/- per month was claimed as damages pendente lite. In defence, the Bank pleaded that the possession of the accommodation was delivered to it on 1-8-1993 and the Bank is depositing the rent in the account of the plaintiff landlady. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff landlady has taken a sum of Rs. five lacs as advance money for the purposes of raising constructions and part of the said amount is still outstanding.

(2.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed. Issue no. 1 was to the effect as to whether the possession of the ground floor and the first floor was delivered on 20-9-1991 and 1-1-1992, as pleaded by the plaintiff or on 1-8-1993, as pleaded by the defendant. Issue no. 2 was with regard to 25% increase of rent after every five years. Issue no. 3 was with regard to the relief which may be granted to the plaintiff.

(3.) THE suit has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17-2-2005 on the ground that it is premature. The trial court has found that since it is an admitted case of the plaintiff landlady that she has taken an advance of Rs. five lacs, which was to be repaid by adjusting the monthly rent, still some amount is outstanding in that account, the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has no right to seek decree for eviction. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present revision has been filed.