Central Information Commission
Mr.Rakesh Goswami vs Banking Division on 21 December, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/SM/C/2011/001018/LS
(Rakesh Goswami -Vs- Indian Overseas Bank)
Dated : 21.12.2011
This matter was first heard on 05.09.2011. The proceedings of the day are reproduced below :-
"Heard today dated 5.9.2011. Appellant present along with his Assistant Shri M.L. Sharma. The Bank is represented by Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia, Chief Manager, Regional Office. The parties are heard and the records perused.
2. The matter, in short, is that H No J-3/200, Nehru Apartment, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, is the family property of the appellant. The Ground Floor and the First Floor of the said property were leased out to the Bank in 1984 which continue to be in the Bank's occupation. There were three lessors viz :- Smt Gita Rani, (since expired), Shri Sunil Goswami (appellant's Brother) and Shri Rakesh Goswami (appellant herein). It is the grievance of the appellant that he is being paid 1/3 of the lease amount and the 2/3 of the lease amount is being withheld by the Bank for no cogent reason. He also submits that the Bank has been paying inadequate rent and his request for enhancement of the same has not been acted upon by the Bank. It is also his say that after the death of his mother, he had issued notice to the Bank to vacate the premises but to no avail. The sum and substance of the appellant's submissions is that the Bank has been acting unfairly by way of not paying full rent to him and his sister, not vacating the premises and not enhancing the rent etc. He also submits that a family settlement was reached between him and his sister Smt Nutan Bhardwaj and the High Court had passed an order dated 12.12.2008 in this regard but the Bank has disregarded this order.
3. In this connection, vide RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information on the following 04 paras :-
"(i) What action has been taken on my legal notice dated 18.4.2009 and why no response to the said till date;
(ii) As we are the Lawful owners of the property as per the agreement, why is it that no rent is being paid to me and to my sister Smt Nutan Bhardwaj;
(iii) Why the rental arrears of Rs 6.50 lacs of which my share is 3.25 lacs, is not being paid to me; &
(iv) Please supply copy of the file noting in which this matter has been processed in the Bank."
4. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 25.5.2011 and taken the line that the appellant was ventilating his grievances and that the matter did not fall u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
5. During the hearing, Shri Bhatia submits that 1/3 rent is being paid to the appellant as he is one of the three lessors and that the rest of the rent will be paid to the parties concerned after the family settlement has been arrived at. As to the vacation of the premises, he submits that the Bank is trying to take alternate space but this process is going to take some time. As to the non-implementation of the High Court order, he submits that the directions of the High Court are not specific and if the appellant obtains specific directions from the Court regarding the payment of rent, the Bank will be obliged to implement such order.
6. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that rejection of the RTI application by the CPIO on the ground that it does not fall in the purview of the section 2 (f) of the RTI Act is not sustainable in law. It is undeniable that appellant had issued a legal notice dated 18.4.2009 to the Bank. In the RTI application he had sought information as to why rent of about over Rs 07 lakhs was being withheld by the Bank. These queries remained unresponded to by the CPIO. In my opinion, the appellant, indeed, had sought information in terms of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this view of the matter, the decision taken by the CPIO can not be said to be in conformity with section 2
(f).
7. The matter is adjourned to 8.11.2011 at 1050 hrs. In the meanwhile, the CPIO will respond to the appellant's queries extracted above"
2. Subsequently, the matter was heard on 07.12.2011. The proceedings of the day are reproduced below :-
"This matter was heard by this Commission on 5th September, 2011. The hearing remained inconclusive and the matter was adjourned to 8th November, 2011. The matter was accordingly heard on 8.11.2011. The appellant appeared before the Commission along with his counsel Shri Deepak Saini. The Indian Overseas Bank was represented by Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia, Chief Manager, Regional Office. As orally directed, the appellant has filed an affidavit dated 14.11.2011 before this Commission which is taken on record wherein he has claimed that he is entitled to receive 50% share of the monthly rental as also 50% of the lease amount being unlawfully withheld by the Bank.
2. It is also noticed that information sought by the appellant does not appear to have been supplied to him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct that a copy of the affidavit filed by the appellant may be sent to Shri B.M. Warman, Chief Public Information Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, New Delhi, with a direction to appear before the Commission on 20th December, 2011 at 1030 hrs along with Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia, Chief Manager, Regional Officer. The CPIO will produce all relevant records before the Commission for perusal.
3. Notice be also issued to the appellant for appearance."
3. The matter was further heard on 20.12.2011. The appellant was present along with his counsel Shri Dipak Saini. The Bank was represented by Shri D.V. Rao, Assistant General Manager and Shri A.K. Bhatia, Chief Manager(Law). The parties were heard. It was pleaded by the counsel for the appellant that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in order dated 12.12.2008 had ruled that the appellant herein was the lawful owner of half share of the property in question. The counsel for the appellant had further pleaded that the High Court order has not been implemented by the Indian Overseas Bank in as much as 50% rent of the property is not being paid to the appellant and only 1/3 rd rent of the property is being paid to him which is violative of the High Court order.
4. The officers of the Bank present before the Commission submitted that the High Court order was not clear and they had asked the appellant to seek a clarification from the High Court so as to enable them to pay him 50% rent to him. They also sought short adjournment for filing a written representation before the Commission. In view of this, the matter was adjourned to 21.12.2011.
5. As scheduled, the matter is heard today dated 21.12.2011. The appellant is present along with his counsel Shri Dipak Saini. The Bank is represented by Shri D.V. Rao, AGM and Shri A.K. Bhatia, Chief Manager(Law). They submit a written representation which is taken on record wherein it has been stated that the Bank is public institution and it is not correct to say that it is unwilling to pay the legitimate dues to the appellant. The representation also mentions that the High Court order under reference was issued on 12.12.2008 which, at best, entitles the appellant for 50% share of the rent w.e.f. 12.12.2008 and, therefore, they have no objection to pay 50% share of the rent to the appellant with effect from the date of the order of the High Court. The relevant para of the representation is extracted below :-
"It is submitted that at no point of time the Bank being a public institution were unwilling to pay the legitimate dues of the appellant or withhold any information required by him. The respondent at all material times was only seeking orders from the Competent Authority for payment of dues of the appellant as there was ambiguity in the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and thus wanted clarification of the order and never wanted to entangle itself in any unnecessary litigation. The Respondent several times asked the appellant to seek clarification of the High Court order but in spite of getting clarification from the Hon'ble High Court, has filed the present application without reason. It is submitted that the necessity of clarification of the High Court order has mainly arisen because of the fact that at the time of passing of the above order the appellant dropped his brother Shri Sunil Kumar Goswami and the respondent from array of defendants and thus the order in law is not binding on the answering respondent being not a party in the suit and as the compromise was recorded on 12.12.2008 as such the appellant can claim if any only from 12.12.2008 and cannot claim amount prior to 12.12.2008."
6. The High Court order is reproduced below :-
"The plaintiff seeks to drop the legal representatives of the defendant no.1, defendant No.2 and the defendant No.4 from the array of defendants. It is stated that the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 were not contesting the suit. The defendant No.4 though contesting the suit, was a tenant in the property. Today none has appeared on behalf of the defendant No.4. The suit against the legal representatives of the defendant no.1, namely, defendant No.1(C), defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 is dismissed as withdrawn.
The plaintiff had instituted the present suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of balf share of the property and for specific performance by execution of sale deed with respect to the half share of the property. The plaintiff and the defendant No.3 have now compromised all their disputes and differences subject matter of the suit and otherwise on the terms and conditions contained in this application. Though this application records the terms of partition/division of the property between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 and the terms settled between them with respect thereto but it is stated that the partition has already been affected by metes and bounds and the parties do not need an executable decree which would be required to be endorsed on the stamp paper. It is further stated that the terms and conditions orally settled have been merely recorded in the compromise application so that the parties remain bound by the same. The application is signed by the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 and supported by their affidavits and also signed by their respective counsels.
I find that the parties have lawfully compromised all their disputes. The application is allowed. The paties are ordered to be bound by their settlement.
The suit is disposed of with the said directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
7. As noted above, the Bank officers are agreeable to pay 50% rent of the property to the appellant w.e.f. 12.12.2008. However, the counsel for the appellant pleads for 50% payment of the rent w.e.f. 1.10.2006. He also submits that, as desired by the Bank, the appellant is prepared to execute an Indemnity Bond to the effect that if any court of competent jurisdiction passes any order in respect of rent of this property, the appellant will comply with such order and undertakes to refund the requisite amount to the Bank. He also submits that if the Bank agrees to the above, he will not press the RTI application.
8. As noted above, the officers of the Bank are prepared to pay 50% of the rent to the appellant w.e.f. 12.12.2008 on execution of an Indemnity Bond. This principle will also apply to the differential of rent for the period preceding 12.12.2008 which has not been paid to the appellant so far. The appellant will execute Indemnity Bond to the satisfaction of the Bank.
9. The matter is decided accordingly. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, J-3/200, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027.
2. Shri Rakesh Goswami, J-3/200, Nehru Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027.