- (1.) N. S. Gupta, J. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1997 passed fey the then First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
(2.) GHAZIABAD, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for the issue of mandatory and prohibitory in junction order. According to the plaintiffs, plain tiff M/s. Regency Express (P) Ltd. is a corporate body, of which Sri Ashok Thapar and Smt. Veena Thapar are the Directors. They are engaged in the busi ness of constructing buildings for residen tial and commercial purposes. The plain tiffs claimed that they constructed a build ing known as Thapar Plaza on G. T Road, Ghaziabad, which was a residential cum commercial complex. The plaintiffs of fered to let out the ground floor of the said building to the defendant Vijaya Bank at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. feet and basement at the rate of Rs. 6 per sq. feet. This offer was made by the plaintiffs in writing by means of their letter dated 22-8-1988. The superior officers of the Bank gave as surance to the plaintiffs in this behalf and on 27-9-1988, the officers of the Bank in formed the plaintiffs that the offer of the plaintiffs was under consideration. It was alleged that the defendants agreed to pay. six months rent in advance and an amount equivalent to sixty months rent in the form of loan. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant Bank wanted to set up one of its branches in this complex by shifting the same from Navyug Market. The plaintiff was maintaining the Current Account No. 868 with the defendant Bank on 26-10-88, the plaintiffs company made a request for the grant of Rs. 50 lacs as over draft which was duly granted by the defendant bank on an interest of Rs. 16. 5 per cent per annum. The defendant Bank asked the plaintiffs to mortgage their property situate at Ghaziabad as equitable mortgage. The said property was valued crores of rupees. The plaintiffs informed the defendant bank about their deal with M/s. Webbing and Belting Factory (P) Ltd. Ghaziabad for a sum of Rs. 4 crores. The plaintiffs deposited title deeds relating to their property Bearing No. A-3, Ramposh Enclave situate at Delhi, for the satisfac tion of the defendant bank. The officers of the defendant Bank obtained the signa tures of the plaintiffs on certain printed and blank papers on 2-7- 1989 and granted cash credit limit of Rs. 50 lacs to the plain tiffs at the rate of Rs. 17. 5 per cent per annum. In this way cash credit limit of the 'plaintiffs was granted by the defendants bank to the extent of one crore. The plain tiffs asked the defendant Bank to take their property situate at Ghaziabad on rent, but instead of doing so, the defendant Bank sent a notice to pay the entire loan within a period of three weeks. The plaintiffs pleaded that one Smt. Subhawati Raina was owner of the property bearing No. A-3, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi, who had executed a will dated 8-2-1982 in favour of plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Vee. na Thapar. Smt. Subhawati Raina was alive. The defendant Bank had, therefore, no right to withhold the papers relating to the said property. The defendant bank contested the suit on the ground that they granted cash credit facility to the plaintiffs to the tune of Rs. one crore and in that connection, the plaintiffs had mortgaged their property situate on G. T. Road, Ghaziabad as well as A-3 Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. The defendants further pleaded that they never accepted the offer of the plaintiffs to take their property on rent situate at Ghaziabad. All the documents were properly executed by the plaintiffs and the amount of interest was never reduced by the defendant Bank. It was pleaded that the defendant Bank took legal proceed ings against the plaintiffs as they failed to maintain their commitment for the repay ment of the loan in question. It was pleaded that Smt. Subhawati Raina had transferred th4 property situate at New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff No. 2 in the year 1984, On the request of Smt. Subha wati Raina, ithe Delhi Development Authority had mutated the name of Smt. Veena Thapar pn the said property known as A- 3, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. It was further plekded that no cause of act ion arose to the plaintiffs for filing the suit. The jurisdiction of the court at Ghaziabad was also assailed.
(3.) THE pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were en titled for the adjustment of Rs. 46,000 per mensum on account of rent of their property situate at Ghaziabad and further at the rate of Rs. one lac thirty thousands with effect from 7-3-80 in respect of their property situate at Ghaziabad known as Thapar Plaza, G. T Road, Ghaziabad ? (ii) Whether there was any agree ment enforceable at law in between the plaintiffs and tie defendants for taking the plaintiffs' property Thapar plaza on rent? (iii) Whether the courts at Ghaziabad had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs were en titled to maintain the suit? After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge found that there was no lawful agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants for taking the plaintiffs' property Thapar Plaza G. T. Road Ghaziabad on rent and, therefore, the defendants were not liable to adjust the amount of so- failed rent towards loan in question. He accordingly dismissed the suit; hence the appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.;