- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was filed by the State Bank of India, defendant, against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1993.
(2.) A suit for recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation, mesne profit, ejectment of the defendant from the premises in question etc. was filed. The said suit has been decreed and a decree for evic tion of the revisionist was also passed. A caveat was filed through Sri Aditya Narain Advocate for the plaintiff-respon dent. An application for vacating the inter im order was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord. An alternative prayer was also made in the said application to decide the revision itself finally at the earliest. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and the parties have filed true and correct copies of all material record, namely, notice, plaint, written state ment etc. The learned counsel for the par ties consented to decide the revision itself finally without summoning the record of the court below. On 5-9-1995 the revision was heard and it transpired that the parties were in clined to arrive at a compromise in respect of the disputed accommodation. On 10-10-1995 the Court granted time to the parties to talk among themselves and settle the rate of rent per sq. ft. etc. as they may consider and file and compromise deed before the Court. It was specifically mentioned in the order dated 10-10-1995 that the Court has not pressurised or compelled the parties to come to a compromise. It was their own offer. Thereafter number of dates were fixed and adjournments were sought by the par ties specially the revisionist and no com promise deed was filed. Lastly the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Sharad Mal viya stated that the officers of the Bank were ready to compromise but none of the of ficers wanted to take the responsibility on his own shoulder to compromise unless the Head Office of the Bank specifically directed so. Sufficient time had been granted to the parties to arrive at a settle ment and file a compromise as offered by them. Ultimately it was ordered on 9. 8. 1996 that in case no compromise is filed the revision shall be decided on merits. 6-9-1996 was the date fixed on which date also the parties failed to file any compromise. The revision was heard on merits. Sri Sharad Malviya argued the revision for the revisionst at length.
(3.) THE facts of the case are not compli cated. THE suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation for the accommodation, eviction of the defendant etc. was filed against the State Bank of India on the ground that the plaintiffs is the owner-landlord of the property in question. THE building in question was constructed in 1977 and was for the first time assessed by the Municipal Board in the year 1977-78. On 15-12-1979 the property in question was let out to the Bank at a monthly rent of Rs. 1700 for a fixed period of five years and that period expired on 14-12-1984. THE plaintiff pleaded that the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the said premises. It was a monthly lease. THE lease deed was not a registered deed and the plaintiff was a right to evict the defendant from the-suit proper ty. Notice for arrears of rent and eviction dated 11-1-1985 as served on the defendant on 12-1- 1985 by which the tenancy was ter minated and the defendant-revisionist was called upon to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said property to the landlord. THE tenancy of the defendant stood terminated on 11-12-1985. THE revisionist failed to comply with the notice. THE defendant was in arrears of rent from 15-12-1984 to 12-1-1985. THE plaintiff is also entitled to get mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 250 per day till the vacant possession is delivered to him. The revisionist-defendant by written statement denied the plaint case, pleaded that the notice of demand and ejectment was illegal and invalid. The defendant's tenancy could not be terminated by the notice in question and the defendant was not liable to ejectment. The defendant also pleaded the plea of misjoinder. It was also stated that the plaintiff himself approached the Bank for giving the accommodation on lease for five years with further option of renewal of the year each by the Bank on the same terms and conditions including the rate of rent and the lease would commence from the date when the possession was given to the Bank. It was pleaded that it was the plaintiff, who was to execute the registered lease deed in favour of the Bank to which the plaintiff had agreed. Initially the lease was for a period of five years with five further options of renewal of one year each. The defendant pleaded that they were ready to perform their part of the terms. It was the plaintiff who omitted to get the lease deed registered before the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff himself was to be blamed and the defendant would not be liable for the lapses of the plaintiff.;