S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/ order(s) for the following reliefs: '' (i) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to pay the rent to the petitioners which is due since 1.10.1997 with interest, with effect from the date the same became due at the rate of, as being charged by the respondents from the petitioners on the loan taken by the petitioners from the Bank 'in respect of the premises, M/s. Pradhan Place situated at mohalla ''North Office Para P.S. ''Doranda, District '' Ranchi where the branch office of the respondents is functioning. (ii) For also commanding upon the respondents to pay the construction charges for currency chest and strong room as per Bank design and under the supervisions of Architect of the Banks. (ill) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioners.
(2.) ACCORDING to petitioners, they made offer to the Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) with respect to alternative premises which was accepted by the Bank on 20th August, 1994. The petitioners obtained a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs 16 lakhs (total Rs. 23 lakhs) for the purpose of Construction of Currency Chest and also the strong room for the Bank with a understanding that the same would be refunded. A registered deed of lease was executed on 4th May, 2001 w.e.f. 1st October, 1997 between the parties. Since 28th July, 1999 the petitioners were requesting the Bank for payment of rent and refund of the amount spent by petitioners as per specification of the Bank, the reminders were sent vide Annexure -3 series but till date, the admitted rent has not been paid to the petitioners, nor the admitted dues to which the petitioners are entitled in lieu of construction of Currency Chest and strong room for the Bank. It appears that the petitioners given a pleader 'snotice on 30th July, 2003 to which Bank 'slawyer replied on 19th August, 2003. Therein the following stand has been taken by the lawyer on behalf of Bank: 'That the letter dated 20.8.1994 addressed to your clients by my client also contained inter alia in clause -C provisions and specifications for construction that was to be made in the alternative premises for Shyamali Branch and for the said construction work a loan of Rs. 7 lacs was sanctioned to meet the work of construction on the terms and conditions setforth in clause B of the letter dated 20.8.1994. That you have misquoted clause -C of the letter dated 20.8.1994 inter alia containing the provisions and specifications of construction item Nos. 2 and 3 being the Sub - clauses are important. Item No. 2 reads "Construction of safe deposit vault with an area of 500 Sq. ft. in the ground floor will be constructed by you but the cost of special steel reinforcement required for the purpose will be borne by the Bank". Item No. 3 reads ''Currency chest about 500 Sq. ft. to be constructed at Bank 's cost. That your demand of nearly Rs. 16 Lacs for special construction of currency chest and strong room for the said Shyamli Branch premises of my client is arbitrary, erroneous, incorrect and mala fide. The amounts charged are speculative. Sri. S.P. Goel, approved valuer of my client, has assessed the cost of construction made by your clients and the same is under consideration by the Head Office of my client and such assessed cost will be paid to you in due course. That so far as the payment of rent towards my client 'sShyamli Branch premises is concerned, no rent whatsoever is due against my client because the same has been adjusted towards the loan availed by your client for construction of Branch premises and valuedated interest has been refunded to your client on May 5th, 2001 and further the rent has been adjusted towards loan for Rs. 16 Lacs availed by your client for construction of Market and residential complex, which is well within the knowledge of your client. Rent upto the month of July, 2003 has already been paid/adjusted by my client to the credit of the said Loan Account and hence as alleged by your client regarding nonpayment of rent in the notice under reply is false and baseless." From the aforesaid fact, it will be evident that the petitioners had three relationships with the Bank, namely: (a) Landlord of the Bank (b) A contractor of the Bank. (c) A lonee of the Bank. It is further evident that there is a disputed question of fact (i) whether the petitioners are entitled for further amount towards construction of self deposit vault having received a loan of Rs. 7 lacs to meet the work ; (ii) whether the rent upto the month of July, 2003 has already been paid to the petitioners or not and (Hi) whether the Bank is entitled to recover any loan amount from the petitioners/or any further loan amount is to be adjusted from the rent to which the petitioners are entitled or not.
(3.) AS the aforesaid disputed question of fact cannot be determined by this Court under writ jurisdiction, the petitioners may raise the dispute before an appropriate forum, if they so Choose.;