Canara Bank v. Ak Gupta & Sons

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. DI ER 01, 201 1/cw.

¶8RFAN0.4 11 and other connected matters

- * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA Nos. 428/2011, 429/2011, 430/2011, 453/2011, 454/2011, 455/2011 and 456/2011 1st December, 2011 428/2011 ARA BANK Appellant Through : Mr. Rajiv. B. Samaiya, Advocate. versus MK GUPTA & ANR Respondents Through : Mr. Praveen Kurnar Singh, Advocate. WITH RFA 429/2011 CANARA BANK Appellant Through : Mr. Rajiv. B. Samaiya, Advocate. versus K. GUPTA & SONS Respondent Through Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate. WITH FA 430/2011 NARA BANK Appellant Through : Mr. Rajiv. B. Sarnaiya, Advocate. versus RFA Nc 1 and other connected matters Page lof 16 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. RK GUPTA . Respondent Through : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate. WITH 8. RFA 453/2011 CANARA BANK Appellant Through Mr. Rajiv B. Samaiya, Advocate. Versus RAVINDER KUMAR ,Respondent Through : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate. WITH RFA 454/2011 CANARA BANK Appellant rough : Mr. Rajiv. B. Samäiya, Advocate. Versus ANJALI GUPTA Respondent Through : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate. WITH 10. RFA 455/2011 CANARABANK Appellant Through : Mr. Rajiv. B. Samaiya, Advocate. versus SHASHI BALA GUPTA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate. RFA N142812011 and.other connected matters AND 11. RFA 456/2011 CANARA BANK Appellant Through : Mr. Rajiv. B. Samaiya, Advocate. versus MOHINDER KUMAR Respondents Through : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To le referred to the Reporter or not? VAL'MIKJ J. MEHTA. J (ORAL By this judgment, seven appeals are being disposed of inasmuch as they arise from identical judgments of the trial Court, and they involve same issue of facts and law. For the sake of convenience, reference is being made to the facts of Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 428/2011. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 29.4.2011. By the impugned judgment, trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords for reovery of mesne profits qua the tenanted premises. RFA No42812011 and other connected matters The brief facts of the case are that Flat Nos. F-2 and G-12 situated in the cmmercial Plot No. N, 0, P, Savitri Market, Shopping Centre, Tagore Park,j near Model Town-I, Delhi- 110 009 were given on rent to the t/defendant by means of a duly registered lease deed dated 8.5.1998. The tbtal area of the two flats was 548 sq. ft. The lease hold rights created under, the lease deed dated 8.5.1998 was for a period of five years with effect from 20.10.1997. There was an option to the appellant/defendant to stay for another period of five years and thus the total duration of the lease was for ten yars, expiring on 19.10.2007. The initial rate of rent was Z28. per sq. ft. per nonth, and which during the second period of five years became 3780 per s. ft. per month. The case as laid out by the respondents/plaintiffs was that INvell before the expiry of the lease period on 19.10.2007, the laintiffs had been regularly writing to the appellant/defendant to sufrender the lease hold rights on the expiry of duration of the lease, howefver, the appellant/defendant-Bank failed to hand over vacant peaceful ion of the tenanted property. it was therefore pleaded that the appellant/defendant was an unauthorized occupant in the suit property with from 20.10.2007 and was liable to pay market rate of rent of Z150 per sq. ft to Z175 per sq. ft, the rate which was prevailing in October, 2007. It was further the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that there were discussions RFA Nc!.428/2011 and other connected matters for extension of lease, however, nothing came out of the same and ultimately a legal notice dated 6.3.2009 was also served on the appellant/defendant- Bank, vhich having failed to yield the desired response inspite o