Suresh Chand Gupta and ors. Vs. Canara Bank - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
transfer of property - lease--termination--lessee-bank handing over possession of premises and rent/occupation charges--appellant-lesser claims damages --lease deed neither registered nor executed on proper stamp paper--tenancy is for month to month terminable by 15 days notice--plea of appellant that tenancy terminated by efflux of time unsustainable--bank taking other property on rent at higher rent in same locality which is triple the area of suit property and also recently renovated--both properties incomparable--appellant not entitled to any damages and mesne profits--transfer of property act, 1882, section 106.; before the trial court the counsel for the bank submitted that the appellants are not entitled to any damages as the tenancy was never terminated. on the other hand, the appellants submitted that the tenancy was terminated by the efflux of time and in any event by the notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act.;the trial court observed that the lease deed was neither registered nor executed on proper stamp paper and hence, it cannot be considered except for collateral purposes. it was also submitted on behalf of the canara bank that there was no question of termination of the tenancy by efflux of time as the property was not leased out to the bank by virtue of a registered lease deed and in the absence of that, tenancy can be termed as month to month tenancy which is liable to be terminated by 15 days notice. thereforee, there was no termination of lease by efflux of time.; the counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent bank after vacating the property has taken another premises on rent in shakti nagar area itself at much higher rent. the total area of the premises is about 4241 sq.ft at a monthly rent of rs. 1,50,000/- another lease deed regarding ashok vihar property which has been taken on rent has been placed on record. the area of that property is 3805 sq. ft comprising of basement, ground floor and mezzanine floor and the rent of that property is rs. 1,72,225/- per month.;the other two premises which the bank had taken on rent subsequently cannot be compared with the premises of this case. in the premises in question the total area is 1672.48 sq. ft whereas in the other two premises the total area is 4241 sqft. and 3805 sq. ft. the comparison is meaningless. the appellants are not entitled to get any benefit on that ground. apart from this pw-1 admitted in his testimony that the property which was hired by the bank was recently renovated, whereas the suit property was not renovated since it was let out to the bank in 1983. similarly property no. 30/11, shakti nagar is not only recently renovated, but its space is almost triple the space which the bank was occupying at the suit property.;the suit property cannot be let out as the litigation is pending amongst the family members and in this view of the matter, comparison of the suit property with other properties subsequently hired by the bank on rent is of no consequence. he also observed that the appellants (plaintiffs) have failed to prove that they are entitled to any damages and mesne profits.;there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of. - - he also observed that the appellants (plaintiffs) have failed to prove that they are entitled to any damages and mesne profits.dalveer bhandari, j.1. the controversy raised in this appeal rests in narrow compass. in a suit for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits by the appellants, the respondent canara bank admittedly handed over the possession of the premises in question and paid the rent/occupation charges till the time possession was handed over to the appellants. the appellants have now claimed damages. the question which arises in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to the damages or not.2. brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under. the appellants, who were the plaintiffs before the trial court, filed a suit for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits against the canara bank pertaining to the ground floor of the property bearing no. 29/10, shakti nagar, delhi. the premises were let out to the bank on 19.3.1983 and thereafter the lease was extended from time to time and finally the lease was extended for a period of five years w.e.f 2.8.1993. 3. the case of the appellants is that the lease deed came to an end by efflux of time and finally by way of abundant caution a notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act was served terminating the lease w.e.f 1.8.1998. the canara bank contested the claim of the appellants (plaintiffs) and filed a written statement.4. it may be pertinent to mention that the appellants have filed all necessary documents along with the appeal and for deciding the controversy no further documents are necessary and, thereforee, in order to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of the appeal, we thought it proper to dispose of this appeal at this stage.5. before the trial court the counsel for the bank submitted that the appellants are not entitled to any damages as the tenancy was never terminated. on the other hand, the appellants submitted that the tenancy was terminated by the efflux of time and in any event by the notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act. 6. the trial court observed that the lease deed was neither registered nor executed on proper stamp paper and hence, it cannot be considered except for collateral purposes. it was also submitted on behalf of the canara bank that there was no question of termination of the tenancy by efflux of time as the property was not leased out to the bank by virtue of a registered lease deed and in the absence of that, tenancy can be termed as month to month tenancy which is liable to be terminated by 15 days notice. thereforee, there was no termination of lease by efflux of time. 7. the counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent bank after vacating the property has taken another premises on rent in shakti nagar area itself at much higher rent. the total area of the premises is about 4241 sq. ft at a monthly rent of rs. 1,50,000/- another lease deed regarding ashok vihar property which has been taken on rent has been placed on record. the area of that property is 3805 sq. ft comprising of basement, ground floor and mezzanine floor and the rent of that property is rs. 1,71,225/- per month. 8. the other two premises which the bank had taken on rent subsequently cannot be compared with the premises of this case. in the premises in question the total area is 1672.48 sq. ft whereas in the other two premises the total area is 4241 sq ft. and 3805 sq. ft. the comparison is meaningless. the appellants are not entitled to get any benefit on that ground. apart from this pw-1 admitted in his testimony that the property which was hired by the bank bearing no. 30/11 was recently renovated, whereas the suit property was not renovated since it was let out to the bank in 1983. similarly property no. 30/11, shakti nagar is not only recently renovated, but its space is almost triple the space which the bank was occupying at the suit property. 9. the learned additional district judge in the impugned judgment has observed that the suit property cannot be let out as the litigation is pending amongst the family members and in this view of the matter, comparison of the suit property with other properties subsequently hired by the bank on rent is of no consequence. he also observed that the appellants (plaintiffs) have failed to prove that they are entitled to any damages and mesne profits.10. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the impugned judgment and other relevant documents.11. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of. cm 580/2003 is also disposed of.