DENA BANK Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Additional Judge Burhanpur to the Court of District Judge, Burhanpur-Khandwa, in regular civil appeal No. 4-A/04 upholding the judgment and decree dated 24.11.04 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Burhanpur in Civil Original suit No. 14-A/2001, dismissing the suit of the Respondent against the Appellant for eviction under the provision of Section 106 and the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act as by virtue of Section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') the Respondent/landlord, being Municipal Corporation, the provisions of such Act is not applicable with respect of its property.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on behalf of the Respondent herein, the above-mentioned suit for eviction was filed against the Appellant contending that the Appellant institution, being monthly tenant of the Respondent since the year 1971, is in occupation of the disputed premises described in the plaint and also shown in the Schedule-A annexed with the plaint situated at some square of Ward No. 7 of Burhanpur for non-residential purpose. The tenancy being monthly, begins from the first day of every month. As per the agreement of the parties, which had taken-place from time to time on every interval of five years, the existing rent was to be enhanced. Pursuant to it, on making repeated request on behalf of the Respondent, instead to consider such request, the unnecessary disputes were raised by the Appellant and as per terms, the rent was not enhanced. In such premises, the Appellant remained adamant to pay the rent of Rs. 850/- per month and the same was stated in the reply of the letters issued to the Respondent to it. As per further averments of it, the rent was also not paid regularly. As per further submission, the Respondent/Municipal Corporation is under need of the aforesaid disputed accommodation to implement its activities. As per decision of the subcommittee of the Respondent/Corporation, by giving a quit notice dated 10.7.2000, the aforesaid tenancy of the Appellant in the disputed premises was terminated on expiry of the tenancy month vide dated 31.7.2000. In alternate, the tenancy was also terminated by giving an option to the Appellant that if it deems the tenancy month of some different date then on receiving such notice, after 15 days, on expiry of the tenancy month accordingly, the tenancy stands terminated and the Appellant was intimated to vacate the premises and hand-over the possession of the same to the Respondent. Inspite service of such notice on 11.7.2000 on the Appellant through its Head Office, the same was not complied with and the vacant possession of the accommodation was also not given to the Respondent. With these pleadings, the above-mentioned suit for eviction of the Appellant as well as for mesne profit @ of Rs. 4000/- per month, is filed.

(3.) In the written statement of the Appellant, by admitting the alleged monthly tenancy in the disputed premises since the year 1971, it is stated that the Respondent being local authority covered under Section 3(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the provisions of such Act are not applicable in the present matter. It is further stated that initially the Appellant was inducted as tenant at the rate of Rs. 355/- per month. But time to time, on enhancing, the same had come upto Rs. 850/- per month. The same is being paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. During subsisting the tenancy, it was settled between the parties that on every interval of five years, the existing monthly rent would be enhanced but no any terms in this regard was settled on which such enhancement was to be carried-out. The Respondent has also not pleaded any such terms in the plaint. The Appellant never created any obstruction in enhancing the sum of the monthly rent. It has also not committed any default in depositing the same. In continuation it is stated that under consultation of the higher officials of the Appellant its local official had enhanced the monthly rent from time to time and the Appellant/Institution is also ready and willing to enhance the existing rent even today. The rent was also paid by depositing the same in the account of the Respondent held with the Appellant as Saving Account No. 1272 and Current Account No. M-33 and also the loan account. On depositing such sum, the same was withdrawn or received by the officials of the Respondent. The Appellant, being Corporation/Institution, its local official of the Branch did not have any authority to enhance the rent unless sanction or permission is given by the higher authorities. The alleged requirement of the disputed premises to the Respondent is also denied. The alleged quit notice was not given to the local branch of the Appellant and the service of the same on the Head Office, could not be termed to be the valid service on the Appellant as the branch is functioning at Burhanpur. The service of the notice by the Head Office is admitted by the Appellant but as per further averments by such notice, the alleged tenancy could not be deemed to be terminated. It is also stated that some sittings for compromise had also taken-place between the officials of the parties and, in such premises the Appellant is ready and willing to resolve their dispute by compromise. Some averments regarding some new agreement is also stated. In view of such facts of compromise and in the lack of proper cause of action, the instant suit is not tenable. It is also stated that after giving the quit notice, the Respondent's officials, have accepted the offer regarding enhancement of the rent and pursuant to that on depositing the amount of rent in their account, by receiving the same, the Respondent has waived their notice of termination of such tenancy and, in such premises, the suit of the Respondent, could not be decreed for the prayer as made in it. The objection with respect of improper valuation and the deficit Court fees are also taken. With these averments, the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.