Allowed

Union Bank of India and Another v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2018SCCR/44/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision was allowed. The Court directed the appellant bank to pay mesne profits at an increased rent of 25% from March 1, 2017, due to continued possession during litigation. The bank must vacate the property within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay 25% increased rent as mesne profits from March 1, 2017, and deliver vacant possession within six months.

Union Bank of India and Another Vs Ashwani Kumar Gupta… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 44 of 2018 Revisionist :- Union Bank Of India And Another Opposite Party :- Ashwani Kumar Gupta And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- R.K. Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶3

This petition has been filed by the revisionsts / tenants saying that the revisionist is a bank and cannot shift the bank from the premises in question without following the guidelines regarding availability of infrastructure as determined by the Central Vigilance Commission.

¶4

Since, notice of eviction was given on 16.12.2016 by the landlords, the bank has been trying to locate suitable premises in the area in question i.e. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, but despite public advertisement, they have not been able to locate any premises suitable for shifting the bank.

¶5

With regard to merits of the case, the counsel for the revisionists submits that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding automatic termination of tenancy after 28.2.2017 is unacceptable.

¶6

He has also pointed out Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which according to him would govern the contract of lease as the premises in question are not covered by the Rent Control Act.

¶7

According to the learned counsel for the revisionsts, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the notice issued by the landlord was not a valid notice and because of invalidity of notice, the SCC Suit No. 22 of 2017 was not maintainable.

¶8

However, the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court with regard to the different clauses of the lease initially entered into the between the parties on 1.3.2002, which was for an initial period of five years at the rate of Rs. 52598.72/- per month. This lease was extendable as per terms of the contract for two more terms of five years each at the increased of rent of 25% at each stage. The maximum period of the contract of lease was fifteen years and the same had expired on 28.2.2017.

¶9

Learned Trial Court has found on the basis of evidence on record that the bank indeed tried to locate alternative premises during the currency of litigation, but could not locate the same till the

¶10

date of the order dated 6.4.2018. It has therefore directed that the lease premises be vacated by the bank within one month and till delivery of vacant possession, the bank would continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 82,185.50/-.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionsts as well as the respondents have both tried to argue the matter on merit, but later on an oral settlement has been reached that some more time which this Court considers reasonable, be given to the bank to vacate the tenanted premises at increased rent and the time limit prescribed by this Court for delivery of vacant possession shall be respected by the bank.

¶12

Since, the property in question is situated at Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur which is a posh locality of the city of Kanpur and the earlier contract entered into between the parties provided for 25% increase of rent after completion of every five years, atleast 25% increase in rent should have been given by the Additional District Judge, the learned Trial Court as the lease in question had expired on 28.2.2017 and the bank had continued in possession over the property during currency of litigation.

¶13

Therefore, this Revision is disposed of with a direction to the revisionists to pay 25% over and above Rs. 82,185/- since first of March, 2017 for the period of currency of litigation as mesne profits and to deliver vacant possession of the property in question within a period of six months from today.

¶14

The bank shall file an undertaking before the learned Trial Court tendering mesne profits as directed by this Court to the landlord / respondent within one month from today, and shall also undertake to tender rent within seven days from its accrual, month to month, and to deliver vacant possession of the property in question within six months, failing which the landlord is free to proceed in accordance with law for eviction of the revisionists.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.5.2018 Arif

Union Bank of India and Another v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India and Another v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anupama Sukla Vs a.C.J.M.- 10 Allahabad/Letting, Rent and Eviction Authority and 2 Others

Sri Thakur Sita Ramji Maharaj Virajman, Allahabad, through Baleshwar Prasad Jaiswal Vs Sri Satya Prakash Kesarwani (Deceased)and 3 Others

Satish Swaroop Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kannauj and Another

Allahabad Bank Vs Abhishek Gupta

Prabhat Kumar and Brothers Vs Prescribed Athority/Judge, Small Causes Court and Another

Deoki Nandan Vs Mohan Lal Agarwal and 3 Others