DR. RAJKUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR
LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-117
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on April 10,2018

Dr. Rajkumar Agarwalla Appellant
VERSUS
The State Bank Of India And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KALYAN RAI SURANA,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. K.K. Dey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) This appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No. 235/2003, by which the suit of the appellant was dismissed.
(3.) The said suit was instituted by the appellant for declaration, realization of money, compensation and damages. As per the plaint, the case in brief is that the appellant is the owner of two storied RCC building situated at Rangia Town, which originally belonged to his father. In the year 1968, his father had let out the ground floor of the building to the respondents for Rangia Branch of the State Bank of India. In course of time, his father had constructed the first floor as per requirement of the bank and the premises was lease out by an Agreement dated 13.03.1995. The said lease was renewed from time to time and the agreement was to expire on 31.12.2003. From the Assam Tribune dated 30.09.2002, the appellant came to know that the respondents were going to shift their branch to another premise at MG Road, Rangia, w.e.f. 01.10.2002. It was stated that no notice of shifting was served on them. Seeking several reliefs including the prayer that the respondent had no right to vacate the suit premises, the appellant had filed T.S. No. 250/2002. A separate application for ad-interim injunction was filed, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 98/2002. It was projected that on 26.11.2002, when the appellant had visited the suit premises including the residential premises let out by his mother for the residence of respondent No. 3, he was surprised to see that the respondents had shifted to another premises without any information and without delivering the keys. Hence, the appellant withdraw the said suit with liberty to file afresh. By the present suit, the appellant had prayed for declaration that he was entitled to realize monthly rent amounting to Rs. 2,76,430/- in respect of the suit premises described in schedule of the plaint for the period from November, 2002 till expiry of the lease/tenancy agreement dated 04.05.2001, for realization of damages and compensation of Rs. 6,69,053/-, being the value of the damages caused to the suit premises, for realization of electricity charges for February, 2003 of Rs. 21,522.25 with further bill amount till expiry of the lease agreement dated 04.05.2001 with surcharge of Rs. 2% per meter and for realization of interest at the rate of 10% P.A. with quarterly rests.;


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