CANARA BANK Vs. MRS R PARVATHI
LAWS(DR)-2003-9-8
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 24,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Subbulakshmy, J. (Chairperson) - (1.)AGGRIEVED against the order passed by the PO, DRT, Coimbatore for appointment of surveyor and Advocate Commissioner to prepare and submit a report on the disputed carpet area of the suit property, the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.
(2.)The respondent borrowed amount from the applicant Bank for construction purposes and the building was constructed and it was let out to the Bank from 1.10.1996 at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per sq. ft. The Bank has been paying the rent at such rate for the total plinth area of 8,197 sq. ft. which is covered under the lease agreement and that rent amount was being adjusted towards the loan amount till now. The lease agreement reveals that the plinth area is only 8,197 sq.ft.
The Counsel for the respondent submits that the total plinth area is 10,100 sq. ft. and the rent must be paid for that entire area of 10,100 sq. ft. But the lease agreement clearly reveals that the total plinth area is only 8,197 sq. ft. If really plinth area was 10,100 sq. ft. and odd, the landlord respondent would not have signed that agreement and he would have prepared a fresh agreement for the entire area of 10,100 sq. ft, and signed that agreement. The fact that the respondent signed the lease agreement according to the entire plinth area of 8,197 sq.ft. clearly reveals that the total plinth area of the building is only 8,197 sq. ft.

(3.)IT is evident from the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant Bank that the respondent landlord has initiated rent control proceedings before the Rent Control Court for eviction of the tenant Bank and for fixation of fair rent. Any dispute with regard to the rent control proceedings can be decided under that rent control forum which has got jurisdiction to decide that matter. Since the fair rent petition is also pending before the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Court is the competent authority to decide with regard to fair rent to be fixed taking into consideration of the total plinth area and the relevant factors with regard to the building and that can be agitated and decided in the rent control proceedings. Now, as it is, the documents filed reveal that the total plinth area for the constructed portion is only 8,197 sq. ft. for which only there is lease agreement and the landlord has agreed for that and has signed the lease agreement. The DRT has no jurisdiction to decide with regard to the plinth area of the building or with regard to the fixation of rent for the premises. That has to be decided only in a separate Forum before the Rent Control Court. The petition filed by the respondent before the PO, DRT itself is not maintainable and the order of the PO, DRT, Coimbatore is not sustainable.


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