CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. KESHAORAO NARAYANRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant Central Bank of India has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-3-1990 passed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 153/1988 whereby the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 8-1-1988 directing the defendant to pay Rs. 42,000/- with interest @ Rs. 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, was confirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts are required to be stated as under: the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 42,000/- with interest against the defendant on the contentions that the plaintiff is owner and the landlord of the building situated on Plot No. 1 Survey No. 30/1 at umarkhed. He contended that the defendant-bank was inducted as a tenant in this binding on the monthly rent of Rs. 2,550/ -. The defendant bank did not pay the rent for the period September, 1985 to February, 1987 total amounting to Rs. 45,900/- in spite of demand and by their letter dated 19-3-1987 informing that the cheque for Rs. 9925. 64 was issued after deducting the amount of Rs. 35974. 36 on account of the outstanding amount borrowed by the plaintiff from the Bank of M. G. Road branch. It is contended that the defendant has unauthorisedly and illegally deducted the said amount of outstanding loan as the claim of the bank for the outstanding amount of the loan was barred by the period of limitation. The defendant-bank was informed accordingly and was called upon to pay the arrears of rent which were unauthorisedly deducted, but in vain and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of the unpaid arrears of rent with interest.

(3.) THE defendant-bank resisted the claim by filing written statement and contended that the plaintiff had borrowed the loan from M. G. Road Bank and the total amount of outstanding loan was to the tune of Rs. 35974. 36 till february, 1987 which was inclusive of interest and though the said amount was demanded by service of legal notice, the same remained unpaid. It is contended that the plaintiff did not give any reply to the notice not even communicated to the bank for the said adjustment by which the amount of outstanding loan amount was due from him. The plaintiff is residing on the ground floor whereas the defendant-bank has been inducted as tenant on the first floor of the same premises and the plaintiff had given assurance for repayment of the loan amount from time to time and ultimately there was a meeting between the parties just 8 to 10 days prior to issuing of the cheque for adjustment of the loan amount. The plaintiff had agreed for the adjustment and therefore, the defendant-bank has rightly deducted the amount of R. 35974. 36 and it is not liable to pay anything to the plaintiff.