UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAVINDRA PHANSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI V.K. Jain with Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for applicant. He is heard on the question of admission. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 1 1.5.2007 passed by the 16th Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Indore in Civil Suit No. 36 -A/05. By the order impugned the application preferred by the applicant herein, under O. 7 R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

(2.) THE respondents herein have filed a suit for eviction against the applicant under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The applicant filed an application under O. 7, R. 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that during lease, suit filed by the respondents herein is premature. Trial Court did not agree with contention and rejected the application by the order impugned.

(3.) FROM perusal of the order impugned it is clear that initially the suit accommodation was let out to the applicant on a lease for a period of five years vide registered lease deed dated 6.11.2000. Though there was a clause for extension/renewal for lease, for a period of further five years, but according to the plaint averments, as noticed by the trial Court in the order impugned, the plaintiff did not extend or renew the lease after its expiry. The plaintiff served the notice after expiry of the initial lease period and when applicant failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises, respondents have filed the eviction suit which is now pending before the trial Court. The trial Court in the order impugned has observed that for deciding the controversial fact in issue evidence would be required therefore, at the initial stage, the plaint cannot be rejected as prayed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant placed strong reliance on the decision, of the Laxmidas Babudas Darbar and another v. Rudravva (Smt.) and others [(2001) 7 SCC 409] in support of his contention that no eviction suit is maintainable during the currency of the contractual, lease. He has particularly invited attention to the paragraph 17 of the decision, which reads as under: