GANGJEE Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 11.09.2007, passed by the Estate Officer, Punjab National Bank, the petitioner herein challenged the said order before the City Civil Court XII Bench, who also upheld the finding of the Estate Officer vide its order dated 28.02.2013. At the time of filing miscellaneous appeal before the learned City Civil Court the following grounds were taken by the petitioner viz. (1) no opportunity was given to the appellant to appear before the Estate Officer (2) no notice of termination was served, (3) order was passed behind his back and that he was not given a personal hearing. The learned First Appellate Court dealt with these issues and found the decision of the Estate Officer as correct.

(2.) In this revisional application the petitioner herein contended that the present petitioner was not cross -examined and no notice was served upon all the occupants. In course of hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf the opposite party has submitted that in the revisional application at page 9 para 6 the present petitioner has nowhere stated as to whom they have sublet the space in question and naturally he could not take the advantage of his own wrong. This apart, cross -examination of present petitioner was not mandatory for the Estate Officer since it is a summary trial.

(3.) In the interest of effective adjudication, factual aspect of the case is to be re -visited. The respondent bank is now a nationalized bank having many branches. The suit premises was purchased by the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank and upon its merger the respondent bank became the owner of the suit premises. After a considerable years, the respondent bank found that the present appellant is in occupation as a tenant in this space as provided in the schedule, who was inducted by the predecessor of the respondent bank as a monthly tenant. The respondent bank being the owner of the entire premises, issued the eviction notice upon the respondent on 07.06.2004 and asked the appellant to quit and vacate the said possession of this space within 15 days from the date of receiving of the notice. The grounds mentioned in the said eviction notice was for reasonable and bona -fide requirement of the respondent bank. Subsequently, a corrigendum notice was issued also on 11.05.2007. In spite of the said notices, the appellant tenant did not deliver the respondent bank the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises and as such the appellant was considered as an unauthorized occupant. In exercise of the power conferred under the Act of 1971, the Estate Officer was appointed. It has been further contended that the cause of action of the case arose on 24th June, 2004. It also appears that the opposite party (present petitioner) had given reply to the notice dated 07.06.2004. After hearing both sides the Estate Officer was pleased to pass the impugned order holding that the said notification is advisory in nature. Applicant's contention that since consent decree was passed, the Estate Officer cannot pass eviction order accordingly it is not at all maintainable. The Estate Officer held that the situation prevalent in 1958 is squarely different as on 2007. He has also considered that, on the strength of consent decree, the present opposite party has allowed the petitioner to use the premises as a tenant only and such consent does not give any right in nature of perpetual occupancy to the tenant. He also categorically stated that the present opposite party bank was not a made a party to such consent decree and so he is not bound by the said decree.