SADAY CHAND MAHTAB Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners claim to be the joint owners of premises no.2, N.S. Road, Kolkata 700001 (hereafter the said premises). On or about 7th February, 1979, an agreement was executed by and between the petitioners and the first respondent (hereafter the bank). In pursuance thereof, the said premises, comprised of an area measuring 49,003 sq. ft., was let out to the bank by the petitioners on leave and license for a period of 12 months at an aggregate sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as license fee, payable per month on or before 15th of each month, with further obligation on the part of the bank to pay electricity charges, increase in municipal rates in respect of both owners and occupiers' share and such sum as may be levied as surcharge for non-residential use thereof. The said agreement was extended from time to time and ultimately it was extended for six months with effect from 15th February, 1984. Since the bank did not vacate possession of the said premises after expiry of the extended term, a civil suit was instituted by the petitioners in this Court for recovery of possession of the said premises. A learned Judge of this Court on 23rd March, 1996 decreed the suit. Apart from the decree for recovery of vacant possession of the said premises, the petitioners obtained an order for payment of mesne profit by the bank @ Rs.19,000/- per month from 15th August, 1984.

(2.) The bank preferred an intra-court appeal. The learned Judges of the Division Bench differed in their opinion. While the presiding judge upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by holding the bank to be a licensee, the companion judge held that since the bank was in exclusive possession of the said premises, a tenancy had been created in its favour and it could not be treated as licensee. The issue was referred to a third learned Judge of this Court who agreed with the view that the bank had to be regarded as a tenant and not a licensee. Accordingly, the decree for recovery of possession was set aside and the suit dismissed.

(3.) The petitioners thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by this Court. During pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the parties initiated efforts to work out a settlement. In course thereof, the petitioners on 2nd September, 2000 offered proposal containing the following terms: