KIDARSONS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK
LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-253
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 26,2007

KIDARSONS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD Appellant
VERSUS
ALLAHABAD BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The appellant herein filed Suit No. 193/1996 in this Court. This suit was for specific performance of the purported agreement of lease of immovable property and for mandatory injunction. That suit has been dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.7.1999 holding that the suit filed by the appellant herein was not maintainable.
(2.) The appellant was inducted as tenant by the respondent Allahabad Bank on the 4th floor of building known as Allahabad Bank Building situated at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Area in its possession, on the said floor, was 1178 sq. ft. Monthly rent was Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. in addition to Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month payable as service charges. This tenancy was upto 1989. The appellant continued in possession even thereafter and in the year 1996 filed the afore-mentioned suit. The case of the appellant was that after the expiry of the earlier period of tenancy, the respondent agreed with the appellant to allow the appellant to continue as a tenant in the suit premises from 1.1.1994 at the rent and service charges which are increased by 25% over the last paid rent and service charges and as per the agreement the appellant was to continue as a tenant till 30.11.1998. However, the respondent sent legal notice dated 21.12.1995 terminating the tenancy of the appellant in respect of the suit premises. According to the appellant, this was not permissible in view of the agreement of lease/ renewal of lease upto 30.11.1998 with the right of renewal granted to the appellant.
(3.) The respondent herein filed the written statement and contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that there was no such agreement vide which the respondent agreed for renewal of the license. It was submitted that after the lease expired by efflux of time in the year 1989, there was no fresh lease deed entered into between the parties. It was stated that though negotiations took place between the parties regarding the lease of the suit premises, the same was never concluded in a valid contract. It was also stated that the lease, in these circumstances, which became monthly lease, was validly terminated vide notice dated 21.12.1995 and after the termination of the said lease, the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises and was only a trespasser.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.