Delhi District Court
Addl. District & Sessions Judge-2 ... vs Bank Of Baroda on 3 August, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIRENDER BHAT
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-2 /WEST/THC/DELHI
CS No. 176/10
3.8.2010
Mrs. Sunita Bhatia
............ Plaintiff
Vs.
Bank of Baroda
........... Defendant
ORDER
By this oder, I shall dispose of the application under Order 39 Rule 1& 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
The facts in the present case are that the ground floor and the basement of the property no. J-2/15, Rajouri Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi was given on lease to the defendant bank by plaintiff's mother, late Smt. Susheela Bhatia vide lease deed dt 29.09.2009 for a period of ten years at the rent of Rs. 2,28,901/- p.m The plaintiff has averred that the lessor,i.e. her mother died on 27.01.2010. She had executed a will dt 23.07.1985, by which she had bequeathed the tenanted premises in her (plaintiff's) favour, by virtue of which she has become the absolute and exclusive owner of the tenanted premises.
The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has not paid the rent amount after her mother's death, nor attorned to her as the owner/landlady of the suit premises, despite her 2 sending them legal notices in this record. On the other hand, the defendants had asked her by notice dt 24.04.2010 to get the suit premises refurbished within a week failing which they would do it on their own and deduct the cost from the rent amount.
The plaintiff has further contended that she got the tenancy terminated vide legal notice dated 26.05.2010. However, the defendant has started massive alteration work in the premises, got an ATM machine constructed and even enhanced the area of the leased premises. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant has no right to carry on these alterations as the same are not permissible under the lease deed dt 29.09.2009. It has been further alleged that the defendant has caused massive damage to the property and made the structure weak by these alterations.
The defendant bank has denied these allegations of the plaintiff and has contended that plaintiff is not the owner as she has not produced any proof of ownership as required under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The defendant has admitted that alteration work is going on in the suit premises, but has contended all the alterations and additions in the suit premises are being carried out as per the lease deed. Defendant has vehemently denied causing damage to the property or removing load bearing walls thereby making the structure weak.
I have heard submissions of Ld. counsels for the parties and have perused the material on record, including the report of the Local Commissioner.
In the present application, the plaintiff has prayed for granting an ad-interim 3 injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out further additions/ alterations/ demolition/construction in the tenanted premises and causing further damage to the tenanted premises.
From a bare perusal of the lease deed dt 29.09.2009, it is clear that all the construction and renovation work carried on by the defendant is within the terms of the lease deed. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant Para 3 of the lease deed:
" 3. (b)(ii) the lessor hereby consents to any additions, alterations of any nature that may be required in the demised premises, including the outer walls and terrace, for computerization..........modification of frontage/front to accommodate ATM, if any,that may be installed with provision for an independent door for being kept open all the 24 hours round the clock through out the year.
(iii) the lessor hereby further agrees and consents that the lessee (Bank) shall install ATM and VSAT antenna without any extra payment of rent ....
3( 3.(c) that the lessor should carry put necessary alteration/addition/construction to match the lessee's requirements at the cost of the lessor, eg vitrified flooring at ground floor, basement and stairs. Stairs at main entrance has to be renovated, rectification of drainage system wherever necessary has to be got done by the lessor at his cost."
In addition to this, the Local Commissioner's report mentions in detail the work being carried on in the suit premises, eg making of false ceiling, removing old partition walls which were not load bearing walls, erection of new stairs, levelling up of floors, creating space 4 for ATM machine in the front portion with the front door etc. The report categorically says that all the changes have been made within the tenanted premises.
On the basis of the above findings, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case in her favour. All the renovation/construction work being carried on by the defendant is totally within the terms of the lease deed. Moreover, the defendant being a commercial entity, it could have been foreseen by the plaintiff or her mother that all these alterations and additions are would be necessitated in order to suit the requirements of a bank.
The balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. And lastly, this court is not of the view that not granting of relief would not result in irreparable loss to the plaintiff. In fact, the court cannot lose sight of the fact that ATM machine is of great public importance and its legal construction should not be stopped unnecessarily for no reason.
Therefore, for the above reasons, this application of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Announced in Open court. (VIRENDER BHAT)
ADJ - 02 (West)/THC/ Delhi
3.8.2010