Delhi District Court
Sarita Verma vs The State Bank Of India on 4 September, 2024
Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN - II, DJ-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 473/2017
1. Smt. Sarita Verma,
W/o Sh. Rakesh Verma,
2. Smt. Divya Verma,
W/O Sh. Amit Verma
D/o Sh.Kuldeep
3. Smt. Kanika Verma,
W/O Sh. Yash Verma
D/o Sh. H.C. Dandona
All R/o C-177,
Vivek Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-110095
.......PLAINTIFFS
versus
The State Bank of India,
Through its Chairman & Mg. Director
having its Central Office at
Madamae Cama Road, Nariman Point,
Mumbai
AND
The State Bank of India,
Its Local Head Office at 11,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
AND
The State Bank of India,
Through its Chief Manager Branch office
at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031
.......DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution of suit : 29.05.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.09.2024
1 of 14
Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of property admeasuring 1725 sq. ft on ground floor and 1678.58 Sq. ft on first floor of the property bearing No.17 & 18, Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and also for recovery of Rs.47,68,728/- as damages along with future and pendente-lite interest @ 24% per annum; and also for recovery of interest for delayed payment of interest/ parking charges of Rs.2,07,576/-, alongwith further damages of Rs.10 lakhs for causing structural substantial damage to the suit property filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
Brief facts:-
2. It is stated by the plaintiffs that they are the joint and absolute owners of the property admeasuring 1725 sq. ft on ground floor and 1678.58 sq. ft. on the First Floor of property bearing no. 17 & 18, Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property); that plaintiff No. 1 is the admitted owner to the extent of 50% of the Premises while Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 are the admitted owners to the extent of 25% each in the Premises.
3. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the defendant acknowledged the Plaintiffs to be the owners in possession of the Premises and thus, on 29.12.2006, the defendant Bank entered into a lease deed with plaintiffs qua the suit property dated 29.12.2006 (Commencing from 01.10.2006 to 30.09.2016) which is duly registered with concerned Sub-registrar at monthly lease of Rs.1,21,036/-; that subsequent to it, the plaintiffs handed over the vacant physical possession of the premises to the defendant bank; however, it was 2 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India agreed that the monthly rent shall be duly received by the plaintiffs from the defendant bank as also amongst others all the terms & conditions of the Lease, the defendant bank shall not carry out any structural changes in the Premises without the written permission of the plaintiffs.
4. It is averred by the plaintiffs that it is also agreed in the lease deed that parking charges shall be paid by both the parties in equal portion, however, despite repeated requests and reminders, the said parking charges were not being paid by the defendant bank; that in October, 2015, defendant bank without any permission, made structural changes in the premises in question and the plaintiffs raised objection and asked defendant bank to stop the illegal structural changes.
5. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that vide letters dated 26.10.2015 and 01.03.2016, plaintiffs informed the defendant that the lease was expiring on 30.09.2016 and if defendant wanted to continue with its branch, the rent would be - ground floor Rs.185/- sq. ft and first floor - Rs.165/- sq. ft. but no response was received from defendant despite its undertaking that the defendant bank shall renegotiate the terms of the lease.
6. It is further averred that since no fresh lease has been executed between the parties, the occupation of premises by defendant bank has been unauthorized and illegal since 30.09.2016; that a legal notice dated 24.01.2017 was also duly served upon the defendant bank to vacate the suit property and make the payments w.r.t. the damages qua the suit property.
3 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India However, despite receiving the said notice, the defendant did not comply with said notice. Hence, the present suit.
Proceedings:-
7. That pursuant to the summons issued in the present suit, the defendant filed its Written Statement denying all the averments of the plaintiff contending that in recital 'C' and Clause 'J' of the lease deed dated 29.12.2006, it is very unambiguously written that the defendant had two further options of 5 years each with 15% increase in the original rent and that the defendant is not liable to vacate the suit property; and further, that defendant has always paid the rent as per the lease deed and never committed any structural changes in the suit property as alleged.
8. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the then Ld. Predecessor Court, following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for ? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages alongwith interest as prayed for ? OPP
(iii) Relief.
9. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
10. Plaintiff has led his evidence and examined Smt. kanika as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.P1. PW1 relied upon the following documents i.e. site plan Ex.PW1/1, Copy of the registered lease deed duly signed and executed by plaintiffs in name and favour of 4 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India defendant bank Ex.PW1/2, copy of letter making endorsement i.e. 05.07.2008 is Ex.PW1/3; copy of letter dated 12.08.2012 acknowledged by defendant on 27.08.2012 Ex.PW1/4, letter dated 26.10.2015 written by defendant to the plaintiffs Ex.PW1/5, copy of letter dated 03.10.2016 duly received and acknowledged by defendant on 04.10.2016 Ex.PW1/6, legal notice is Ex. PW1/7, original postal/ courier receipts Ex.PW1/8, notices dated 11.05.2017 and 13.05.2017 is Ex.PW1/9 & Ex.PW1/10; its postal receipt is Ex.PW1/11 and copy of letter dated 15.12.2016 duly received and acknowledged by defendant is Ex.PW1/12.
11. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant on 30.03.2019.
12. Plaintiff Witness no. 2 i.e. Sh. Vikas Verma has led his evidence and examined himself as PW-2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A; he further relied upon the documents already exhibited in the affidavit of PW1 and also relied upon certified copy of the lease deed dated 19.03.2019 vide registration no.1977 between Ashok Mumar and Ors and DCB Bank Ltd. for the premises of ground floor and first floor on the land bearing plot No.23 & 24 situated at abadi of Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, admeasuring approximately 3600 sq. feet on the agreed rent of Rs. 5,85,000/- for three years and now present rent is 6,72,750/-, is Ex.PW2/1.
13. PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant on 29.04.2022 and on the very same day, PE was closed before the Ld. Predecessor Court. Thereafter, the matter was listed for DE.
5 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India
14. Defendant has led its evidence and examined Sh. Rakesh Raheja as DW1 and tendered evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.DW1/1 and relied upon letter dated 04.01.2017 Ex.DW1/A addressed to the plaintiffs. DW1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiffs despite giving opportunity and on 28.07.2022, DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
15. Perusal of order sheet dated 26.11.2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court shows that Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs filed an application seeking review/ modification of the order dated 28.07.2022 vide which the right of plaintiffs to cross-examine DW1 was closed. However, Ld. Predecessor Court dismissed the said application and again listed the matter for final arguments.
16. Thereafter, the plaintiffs challenged the orders 28.07.2022 and 26.11.2022 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, pursuant to which the plaintiffs paid cost of Rs.20,000/- to the defendant and conducted cross- examination of DW1 on 07.03.2024. Thereafter, defendant closed its DE and the matter was again listed for final arguments.
17. Final arguments heard from both the sides.
Plaintiffs' submissions:-
18. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that the lease deed in question dated 29.12.2006 was executed only for a period of 10 years and 6 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India the stamp duty paid thereon was also w.r.t. the monthly rent amount for the period of 10 years and Clause 'C' of the said lease deed nowhere extends the present lease deed for a further period of 5 years two times as alleged, and it was only an enabling provision in the lease deed which was never acted upon by the defendant bank.
19. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that vide letter dated 03.10.2016 Ex.PW1/6, the defendant bank has duly received the same and has written its comments thereon " any revision in rent payable can only be effected after finalization of new lease agreement as per mutually agreed terms". Hence, the defendant bank is liable to vacate the suit property and also to pay the damages as claimed in the present suit.
Defendant's submissions:-
20. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the defendant that in Para No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have mentioned that the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 29.12.2006 were sacrosanct, and in light of the said averment, Ld. Counsel for the defendant further submitted that as per Clause 'J' of the lease deed, it provides that " that the lessors will execute a registered lease deed initially for a period of 10 years w.e.f. the date bank takes over possession of the building with two further options to the bank for renewal of the lease for 5 years each with an increase of 15% after expiry of each block of 5 years. The bank shall have the option of renewing the lease of the premises at the expiry of the present terms hereby granted by the lessors".
7 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India
21. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant that the last page of the lease deed Ex.PW1/2 also mentions that " even in the event of the lease expiring and thereafter, the lessee subsequently expressing an intention of renewing the lease by giving increase albeit with retrospective effect, the lessor shall not evict the lessee solely due to the reason of delay in expressing an intention to renew the lease. The lease shall be renewed by the lessors even if the lessee expresses its intention to renew the lease subsequently and delay in expressing such intentions shall not be a bar to the renewal of the lease. It is clarified that delay of any length of time in giving of notice expressing an intention to renew the lease shall not in any work to the prejudice of the lessee in any manner. The lessors shall be duty bound to renew the lease and execute and get registered fresh lease deed. It is clarified that lease shall be deemed to be renewed on receipt of notice expressing renewal and payment of the amount due to the lessors and the lessors will not be entitled to file suit for ejectment against the lessee" .
Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Findings:-
Issue no. 1
22. The burden of proving the above issue is placed upon the plaintiffs to prove their entitlement towards decree of possession of the suit property against the defendant herein. In this regard, the plaintiffs have relied upon the lease deed dated 29.12.2006 Ex.PW1/2 and there is no dispute on behalf of the defendant with respect to execution of said lease deed qua the suit property. Admittedly, the lease deed was executed for a period of 10 years i.e. from 01.10.2006 till 30.09.2016. However, the only defence taken by the defendant is that as per Clause 'J' alongwith the last page of 8 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India the said lease deed, it was duly agreed by the plaintiffs that in the event of lease expiring and thereafter the lessee subsequently expressing an intention of renewing the lease, the lease shall be renewed by the lessors and the lessors shall be duty bound to get the fresh lease deed executed and the lease shall be deemed to be renewed on receipt of notice expressing renewal and the lessors will not be entitled to file a suit for ejectment against the lessee. It is also contended on behalf of defendant that as per Clause 'C' of the lease deed, after expiry of the lease deed for the period of 10 years from 01.10.2006, the defendant bank shall be having two further options for renewal of lease for 05 years each with an increase of 15% in the original rent.
23. It is also the case of the defendant bank that they have duly issued a letter dated 04.01.2017 to the plaintiffs asking for renewal of lease on 15% increase in the rent and therefore, as per the terms of the lease, the plaintiffs are bound to renew the said lease and are not entitled to file the present suit for eviction against the defendant bank.
24. In the evidence of the defendant, DW1 has stated that the bank has not paid any stamp duty after 30.09.2016 in respect of the fresh lease qua the suit property and that after issuing the letter dated 04.01.2017 Ex.DW1/A to the plaintiffs, the bank has not taken any action for getting the fresh lease registered with respect to the suit property.
9 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India
25. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dolly Das dated 13.04.1999 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble Court has observed that :
"12..... Covenant for renewal is not treated as part of terms prescribing the period of lease but only entitles a lessee to obtain a fresh lease".
26. In 'Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Hede And Company' on 15 May, 2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that :-
"25. Having regard to these decisions we must hold that in order to give effect to the renewal of a lease, a document has to be executed evidencing the renewal of the agreement or lease, as the case may be, and there is no concept of automatic renewal of lease by mere exercise of option by the lessee. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission urged on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs that by mere exercise of option claiming renewal, the lease stood renewed automatically and there was no need for executing a document evidencing renewal of the lease..."
27. The plaintiffs have duly proved the letter dated 03.10.2016 Ex.PW1/6 in her evidence, which was duly received by the defendant and there it was written on behalf of defendant bank that " any revision in rent payable can only be effected after finalization of new lease agreement as per mutually agreed terms".
28. In view of the above, this Court holds that the Clause 'C' and 'J' of the lease deed in question Ex.PW1/2 w.r.t. renewal of further two respective periods of 5 years with an increase of 15% rent after expiry of each block of 5 years, is only an enabling provision, and the same does not automatically renew the lease in question as alleged. Admittedly, no fresh lease has been executed between the parties after expiry of the lease period of 10 years commencing from 01.10.2006 till 30.09.2016 and the present 10 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for seeking possession of the suit property on 29.05.2017 i.e. after the expiry of lease period herein. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession of suit property against the defendant. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Issue no. 2
29. The burden to prove the said issue is also placed upon the plaintiffs to seek entitlement of damages alongwith interest as prayed in the instant suit against the defendant. In this regard, in the evidence of PW1, it has come that "it is correct that parking charges were to be paid equally by the plaintiffs and the defendant. I have not mentioned any amount which the defendant was required to credit towards parking charges in the letter dated 05.07.2008 Ex.PW1/3. It is correct that the parking charges were to be paid by the defendant bank subject to the same being claimed by MCD/ DDA. I do not remember if I have placed on record any document in which the said amount has been specified... It is is correct that parking charges for the period 2008-2015 has been paid by the defendant... The only structural change which I recollect that had been made by the bank in the demised premises was establishing of ATM. I had personally not attended the meeting with the regional manager of the defendant bank as mentioned in Para 11 of my affidavit".
30. In the evidence of PW2, the witness has exhibited the lease deed of another property measuring approx. 3600 sq. ft. with one DCB Bank Ltd. to show that the said property is fetching monthly rent of Rs.6,72,750/-, which is 11 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India also in the vicinity of the suit property. DW2 has also deposed that " no parking charges are due from the defendant bank as on date. I have not made any complaint regarding illegal structural changes carried out by them to the MCD. Vol- I have made complaint to the Manager of the bank, who had called upon Regional Manager of the bank".
31. Clearly, no evidence has been led on behalf of the plaintiffs to show any alleged illegal structural changes carried out by the defendant bank in the suit property nor any photographs have been filed by the plaintiffs to depict the status of the suit property at the time of execution of lease deed dated 29.12.2006 or at the time of the alleged illegal construction by the defendant bank in the suit property. Also, PW2 has stated in his evidence that no parking charges are due from the defendant bank as on date and PW1 has not proved as to what parking charges with interest were paid by the plaintiffs to the concerned authorities on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled for grant of any recovery of interest for delayed payment of parking charges and any damages of Rs.10 lakhs w.r.t. carrying out any structural changes in the suit property as claimed in the instant suit.
32. The defendant witness DW1 has duly admitted in his evidence that as on date, the defendant bank is paying monthly rent amount of Rs.1,39,190/- only, and the plaintiffs have proved in their evidence that the said amount was earlier paid by the defendant bank to the plaintiffs pursuant to 15% increase in the original monthly rent of Rs.1,21,036/- after expiry of 5 years from 01.10.2006 till 30.09.2011.
12 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India
33. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that after the expiry of the present lease i.e. 30.09.2016, the defendant bank is further liable to pay escalated monthly rent of Rs.1,60,068/- @ 15% increase from 01.10.2016 till 30.09.2021; and that the defendant bank is further liable to pay escalated monthly rent of Rs.1,84,078/- @ 15% increase from 01.10.2021 till 30.03.2024, and that after deducting the amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs as the monthly rent of Rs.1,39,190/-, the plaintiffs' due amount towards defendant bank w.r.t. arrears of rent amount comes out to the tune of Rs.25,99,354/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Four only).
34. Although, the plaintiffs have shown that the other properties in the vicinity of the suit property are fetching handsome amount of monthly rent vis-a- vis monthly rent qua the suit property in the evidence of PW2, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met if the defendant is made liable to pay the escalated monthly rent amount @ 15% increase as originally agreed between the parties in the lease deed dated 29.12.2006, Ex.PW1/2.
35. Accordingly, defendant bank is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,99,354/- to the plaintiffs towards arrears of rent alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization, and the issue no.2 is partly decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
RELIEF:-
36. In view of the discussion and findings on the issues as stated herein above, the suit is partly decreed and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover 13 of 14 Suit No.: 473/2017 Sarita Verma Vs. The State Bank of India possession of the suit property from the defendant and further entitled to recover an amount of Rs.25,99,354/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization towards arrears of rent alongwith costs from the defendant.
37. Let a decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms.
38. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally
signed by
on 04.09.2024. ANKUR ANKUR JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2024.09.04
16:12:03
+0530
Ankur Jain - II
District Judge - 02
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
14 of 14