Allahabad High Court
Indian Overseas Bank Branch Barabanki ... vs Smt. Amna Sher And Ors. on 15 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21093 Court No. - 6 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 78 of 2019 Revisionist :- Indian Overseas Bank Branch Barabanki Thru.Manager And Anr. Opposite Party :- Smt. Amna Sher And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Avinash Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prabhat Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Prabhat, learned Counsel for the opposite party.
2. The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 whereby, the SCC Suit No.1 of 2018 (Smt. Amna Sher and others vs Indian Overseas Bank and others) was decreed and a decree for eviction as well as payment of rent and damages was assessed to be paid at Rs.23/- per sq. ft. for the area in occupation of the revisionist-Bank.
3. The facts in brief are that the revisionist-Bank had taken on lease the premises owned by the respondent. The said lease commenced w.e.f. 2004 for a first period of five years up to 2009 and rate of rent was fixed at Rs.10/- per sq. ft. Subsequently, the second five years up to 2009 to 2015, there was an enhancement of 15% as per the agreement and the rate of rent was fixed at Rs.11.5/- per sq.ft. As after the expiry of the lease, the revisionist-Bank did not vacate the premises, a notice was served and ultimately SCC Suit No.1 of 2018 was preferred, wherein, apart from a decree of ejectment, the landlord had claimed arrears of rent as well as damages, which according to the landlord would be Rs.1,09,000/- per month.
4. The revisionist-Bank contested the said suit and after the contest as many as three issues for determination were framed by the learned JSCC. While determining the issue no.3, considering the claim of the landlord for payment of rent at the enhanced rate, the JSCC considered that after the expiry of the lease period in the year 2014, it was claimed and brought on record through evidence that as per the Bank circular, the rent of increase was permissible subject to the discretion of the authorities up to 100% for urban and metropolitan area and 150% for rural and semi-urban branches. The power of discretion was vested with the sanctioning authority.
5. Considering the said circular, the JSCC awarded compensation and enhanced the rent after the expiry of the lease period i.e. 15.09.2014 and fixed the same as Rs.23/- per sq. ft.
6. It is informed that the revisionist-Bank has vacated the premises and at present, the instant revision is mainly for quashing the enhanced damages/ enhanced rent as awarded by the JSCC.
7. In support of the said contention, the Counsel for the revisionist argues that in terms of the provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the Small Cause Courts are barred from taking cognizance of the suit, which is specified in the second scheduled of the Act. He thus draws my attention to the Second Scheduled as amended in the State of U.P., which is as under:
"Uttar Pradesh. In Second Schedule, for clause (4), substitute the following clause, namely:-
"(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease.
Explanation. For the purposes of this Article, the expression 'building' means a residential or non-residential roofed structure, and includes any land (including any garden), garages, out-houses, appurtenant to such building, and also includes any fittings and fixtures affixed to the building for the more beneficiai enjoyment thereof."
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 37 of 1972, sec. 4 (w.e.f. 20-9-1972)].
(5) a suit for the partition of immoveable property;
(6) a suit by a mortgagee of immoveable property for the foreclosure of the mortgage or for the sale of the property, or by a mortgagor of immoveable property for the redemption of the mortgage;
(7) a suit for the assessment, enhancement, abatement or apportionment of the rent of immoveable property;
(8) a suit for the recovery of rent, other than house rent, unless the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested by the State Government with authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto;"
8. In the light of the prescriptions contained in Clause (7) of the Second Scheduled as amended in the State of U.P., it is proposed to be argued that the JSCC could not have taken cognizance on a suit for the assessment, enhancement, abatement or apportionment of the rent of immovable property and thus, the entire order passed by the JSCC is bad in law. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Agarwal vs Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and another: 2024 (42) LCD 769 and in particularly paragraph 42, was proposed to be argued that where the Court had the occasion to interpret the word "Cognizable" and held that the same is of wide import and takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a case.
9. In the light of the said, it is argued that the order impugned insofar as it relates to the enhancement of rent at Rs.23/- per sq.ft. is liable to be set aside.
10. The Counsel for the respondent on the other hand tries to justify the order by arguing that the damages were quantified by the JSC Court based upon the own circular of the revisionist-Bank and thus no error can be found with the order impugned. He argues that although the landlord had claimed much higher damages, however, the JSC Court in its discretion based upon the circular awarded damages at Rs.23/- per sq.ft. and thus revision deserves to be rejected.
11. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie, the submission as to whether the JSC Court would have taken the cognizance in view of the bar created by Clause (7) of the Second Scheduled as amended in the State of U.P., as argued by the Counsel for the revisionists, merits rejection for the sole reason that the suit in question was filed for seeking a decree of eviction andmesne profits apart from the arrears of rent, no prayer for enhancement of rent was ever made in the plaint. Thus to that extent, the submission of the revisionist deserves to be rejected.
12. As regard the quantum awarded as damages, the only evidence on record was the administrative circular of the Bank, which prescribes for the rents which can be, in the discretion of the authorized officer, be enhanced in respect of the urban area, which appears to be just and there being no other material placed before this Court to justify that the rent of the premises for awarding mesne profits of the premises in the vicinity of the revisionist, no interference is called for.
13. The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.4.2025 akverma