MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA J. - (1.) THE present application has been filed by the defendant praying for allowing the defendant to adduce evidence of the valuer Shri Soumitra Dey for proving his report in respect of fair rent of the suit premises and admitting the same in evidence. The plaintiff by way of affidavit-in-opposition has opposed such prayer and defendant by way of affidavit-in-reply has sought to meet the contentions of the plaintiff.
(2.) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Bose appearing for the defendant submits by referring to the order dated 14 th June, 2012 that Hon 'ble Court being of the opinion that the suit should be settled by parties to the proceedings had directed Chairman of the defendant-bank to come to Court and submit as to how much rent would be payable by the defendant for occupying the tenanted premises which is about 4,000 Sq. ft. in an expensive area of metropolis. He further submits that as the Chairman of the defendant-Bank was not in a position to say about the same, an empanelled valuer of the Hon 'ble Court was appointed by the defendant-Bank for ascertainment of the valuation of fair rent of the suit premises and the said valuer Shri Soumitra Dey submitted his report and such valuation of fair rent not being accepted by the plaintiff, it is necessary that the said valuer should be allowed to adduce evidence on behalf of the defendant-Bank and prove his report for admitting the same in evidence. Learned Advocate Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury appearing for the plaintiff on the other hand submits that the present petition has been filed simply as dilatory tactics with the sole purpose of delaying disposal of the suit and moreover after completion of evidence of both parties, arguments were adduced by learned Advocate for the plaintiff on several dates. He further submits that after conclusion of arguments on behalf of the plaintiff when the defendant was supposed to commence the arguments, the said order dated 14 th June, 2012 was passed wherein Hon 'ble Court was of the opinion that the suit should be settled by the parties and Chairman of the defendant-Bank was directed to be present in Court to enable to parties to come to a settlement on the question of how much rent should be paid by the defendant-Bank for occupying the tenanted premises which is about 4,000 Sq. ft. in the most expensive area of the metropolis. He further contends that no leave was either prayed for or granted for appointment of a valuer to ascertain the valuation of the suit premises and fair rent payable thereon for which the present application of the defendant-Bank should be rejected with costs. Upon consideration of the submissions of learned Advocates for the parties and on a perusal of the materials on record, I find that the present suit has been filed for determination and settlement of the monthly rent of the suit premises and for consequential reliefs. It is a fact that after evidence was adduced on behalf of both parties and arguments commenced, this Court upon hearing learned Advocates of both sides was of the opinion that the suit should be settled by the parties to the proceedings and passed the order dated 14 th June, 2012 requiring the presence of the Chairman of the defendant-Bank for enabling the parties to come to a settlement on the question as to how much rent should be paid by the defendant for occupying the suit premises. Undoubtedly, the Chairman of a public sector bank cannot make any submission in this regard without any materials in respect of valuation of the suit premises and fair rent to be paid thereon. The defendant-Bank in my view, in order to respect the observation of this Court, duly appointed an empanelled valuer who submitted his report. It is a settled principle of law that if the document is found to be relevant to decide the real issue in controversy between the parties the same should not be shut out. Moreover, if the said valuer is allowed to adduce evidence, plaintiff will be given opportunity to cross-examine him and challenge his said report if required. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has referred to the decisions reported in 2002 (65) DRJ DRJ 255 and 1998 (44) DRJ 347 but I am afraid that the said decisions do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case as there was neither failure on the part of the defendant to avail earlier opportunity to lead evidence nor is it a case were the evidence sought to be adduced in the present case was within the knowledge of the defendant previously which he could not introduce after exercising due diligence, since the valuer was appointed after this Court expressed its opinion that there should be settlement between the parties and even asked the Chairman of the defendant-Bank to come and say as to how much rent the defendant should pay. Under such circumstances I am of the opinion that the prayer of the defendant should be allowed. The defendant is permitted to adduce the evidence of the valuer Shri Soumitra Dey solely to prove his report dated 17.07.2012. The application is accordingly disposed of.
(3.) MATTER will appear in list on 16.10.2012 for adducing further evidence on behalf of the defendant as observed by me above.;