Tarun Agarwala, J.@mdashHeard Mr. Ashish Joshi, the learned Counsel for the revisionist bank and Mr. Ashish Jain, the learned Counsel assisted by Mr. D. K. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the opposite party landlord.
2. This is a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2009 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 25/2006 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Dehradun directing eviction of the revisionist bank and payment of decreetal amount.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the revision is, that revisionist bank is a tenant in the premises in question engaged in banking business. An application u/s 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was moved by the landlord before the District Magistrate for the enhancement of the rent. The District Magistrate, by an order dated 10.06.2003, increased the rent to Rs. 34,620/- p.m. Against the order of the District Magistrate, an appeal was filed by the bank, which was allowed against which a writ petition was filed by the landlord, which was allowed, and eventually, the matter went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by an order dated 10.04.2006, upheld the order of the District Magistrate with regard to the enhancement of the rent @ Rs. 34,620/- per month.
4. Thereafter, the landlord slapped a notice terminating the tenancy and directing the bank to vacate the premises. Since the premises was not vacated, the suit for eviction was filed. The suit was decreed, by the order dated 26.03.2009 alongwith mense profit @ Rs. 38,082/-. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the revisionist bank has come up before this Court.
5. Before the hearing could begin, an offer was made by the learned Counsel for the Respondent landlord that if the bank seeks a reasonable time to vacate the premises, the landlord would agree to it and, on that basis, the matter was adjourned vide an order dated 24.11.2010 and the parties were directed to seek instructions.
6. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the revisionist bank indicating therein that one year'' time may be given to the bank to vacate and handover peaceful possession to the landlord opposite party. The learned Counsel for the landlord opposite party submitted that the time sought by the bank is too much, and that a shorter time may be granted to vacate the premises. The learned Counsel for the landlord further submitted that since the property is located in a prime location and more than 5 years have elapsed since the institution of the suit, damages for the use of the property during the interim period may be suitably increased.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the revision is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The revisionist bank will vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord on or before 30th November, 2011.
(ii) The revisionist bank will deposit before the trial court or pay to the landlord the entire decreetal amount alongwith interest accrued thereon alongwith arrears upto 30th November, 2010, if any, on or before 31st December, 2010.
(iii) Any amount already deposited or paid by the revisionist bank will be adjusted accordingly. If the amount has already been deposited and has not been withdrawn by the landlord, it would be open to the landlord to move an appropriate application for withdrawal.
(iv) For the period from December, 2010 till November, 2011, the revisionist bank will pay damages at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- p.m. on or before the 07th day of each month. For the month of December, 2010, the payment is to be made on or before 15th December, 2010.
(v) If any of the conditions are not fulfilled by the revisionist bank, it would be open to the landlord to move an application for eviction of the bank from the premises in question.
