KALI CHARAN Vs. ICICI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal and also Cross Objections aforesaid arising out of the judgment and decree dated 4th March, 2005, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Suit No.15-S/1 of 2002.

(2.) While the appellant, hereinafter to be referred as 'the defendant' is aggrieved by the decree of possession of the suit premises shown in site plan Ext.P-12 against him, whereby he has been directed to deliver the vacant possession thereof to the respondent, hereinafter to be referred as 'the plaintiff-bank' within a period not exceeding more than one month from the date of decree and also return the articles of crockery supplied to him by the plaintiff-bank, at the same time the plaintiff-bank is aggrieved by that part of the decree whereby its suit for recovery of Rs. 5,40,000/- on account of damages has been dismissed.

(3.) The suit premises shown in the site plan Ext.P-12, is situated in the sub-basement of the building owned by the erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank Limited, The Mall, Shimla. The Bank lateron came to be named as Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited, The Mall, Shimla on and with effect from 1st day of August, 2000. In the year 1981, the suit premises was made available to the defendant by the Bank on license basis for providing canteen facilities to its employees and Award staff. Under the arrangement so made the affairs of the canteen were to be managed by the Secretary of the employees-union and its office bearers. It was for them to supervise the day-to-day pursuits of the canteen and also to fix the rates of the items to be cooked and prepared in the canteen by the defendant. Even the quality of the food was also to be checked by the Secretary of the Union. The purpose to run the canteen was to supply good food stuff to the employees of the bank at cheaper rates and for that the bank was subsidizing for the electricity charges at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month, besides the supply of furniture, crockery and cutlery etc. The defendant was not authorized to sell eatable and other food articles prepared in the canteen to outsiders. The facility of canteen being not of commercial venture, was absolutely for the benefit and use of the members of the bank-staff. The defendant was not required to pay any rent or ever demanded by the plaintiff-bank.