Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The solitary witness on behalf of the Bank namely Sh. S.K.Arora, when examined as PW-1 in Civil Suit no.20/03 on 8.2.2002 deposed during his examination in chief that before the expiry of five years. Lease was to be renewed after serving three months' notice for renewal. His examination was deferred on the ground that carbon copy of notice/letter dated 6.4.1998 is lying in the Branch Office of the plaintiff, photocopy thereof, is already on record. Thereafter, this witness was examined as DW-1, in the present suit, who in his examination in chief vide affidavit has deposed that he sent a letter No.AGM/97-98/7 dated 6.4.1998 to the defendants exercising the option for renewal of Lease Deed. He has further deposed that there was no typing facility in the Branch as such the letter was prepared by him in his own handwriting and he got the same zeroxed and the zerox copy was kept in the Bank's filed. He further deposed that the letter was sent by UPC and the original UPC dated 6.4.1998 is proved as Ex.PW-1/5. This witness also proved the Lease Deed as Ex.PW-1/1. He has further deposed that the rent at the enhanced rate is being paid with effect from 1.8.1998 and communication regarding enhanced rent was sent by him vide letter dated 11.9.1998 despatched to all defendants, copy whereof, is Ex.PW-1/6. He also deposed that execution of Lease Deed was requested verbally as well. Ld. Cl. for the landlords objected to proof of the letter dated 6.4.1998, as only a photocopy was being placed on record, the objection was allowed and the letter dated 6.4.1998 was not allowed to be exhibited. The postal receipts by way of UPC placed on record as Ex.PW-1/5 were also dis- allowed to be exhibited, as the same could be proved only by postal authorities. During his cross-examination this witness admitted that in his statement made in the Court on 8.2.2002, he had deposed that carbon copy of the letter dated 6.4.1998 is available in the Bank records. He also admitted that he had not produced any records in the Court in support of the letter dated 6.4.1998 and also any sanction from senior authorities for issuance of such a letter. He had also not brought any dispatch register or other relevant records proving dispatch of the letter dated 6.4.1998. He denied that the Bank had exercised the option for the first time vide letter dated 11.9.1998, Ex.PW-2/7. He further deposed that they had exercised the option for the first time in August, 1998 by way of a letter.

The obvious interpretation of this clause is that the option for renewal of lease at the expiry of the first term, was to be exercised by the Bank. Further this option could be exercised by way of due notice to the lessors or by way of notice left at their last known address at least three months before the expiry of lease period. The lease was to expire on 31.7.1998 the option, therefore, could be exercised on or before 30.4.1998. The tenant's Trump Card is the letter dated 6.4.1998, wherein, the tenant claims to have exercised the option of renewal. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the letter was ever written and dispatched to the landlords. S. S.K.Arora, Chief Manager of the Bank has deposed that he wrote the letters and dispatched copies to all the landlords. This witness during his statement recorded on 8.2.2002 deposed that carbon copy has been retained in office and later on during his statement recorded on 28.7.2003 deposed that zerox copies was retained in office and that he had written the letter in hand. This contradiction in his statement casts a doubt on the execution of letter. The other circumstances which hits at the authenticity of the letter dated 6.4.1998 is that this letter was not referred to by the Bank in its communications dated 11.9.1998 Ex.PW-2/7 and 29.9.1998 (reply to notice dated 12.9.1998). This letter finds mention for the first time in the Bank's notice dated 19.12.1998 Ex.PW-1/9. Silence on the part of Bank to refer to this letter, after 12.8.1998, in its communications subsequent to issuance of notice by the landlords; is too loud to be ignored. The logical inference which can be drawn is that the letter did not exist and was created at a later date. The tenant has failed to prove any internal communication between the officers of the Bank taking a decision for exercising the option. The witness as also failed to prove from the Bank records that the letters were ever dispatched. No dispatch register or sanction for purchase of stamps for dispatch of the letters of any other similar proof for dispatch has been furnished. The sole reliance is upon postal certificates. In my opinion, letter whereon fate of the case gangs and execution whereof itself if doubtful; reliance upon postal certificates will not be proper. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court have time and again cautioned total reliance upon the UPC receipts, on a letter which is the fulcrum of the dispute between eh parties. Despatch of the letter under postal certificate is also doubtful for the reason that the very next communication dated 11.9.1998 by the Bank addressed to the landlords was dispatched through registered post. The tenant has also not referred to any practice or directions by any higher authorities of the bank for dispatching the letters under postal certificate." (emphasis added).

4. A reference to the aforesaid paras shows that the Trial Court has disbelieved the letter dated 6.4.1998 on the ground that the UPC which is relied upon by the appellant-bank is not believable. The Trial Court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gadakh Y.K. vs. Bala Sahib, AIR 1994 SC 678 that it is easy to procure certificate of postings and therefore UPCs cannot inspire any confidence. The Trial Court has arrived at a finding that the appellant-bank failed to bring and file any dispatch register or relevant records to show proof of dispatch of the letter dated 6.4.1998. The Trial Court has also referred to the fact that the authenticity of the letter dated 6.4.1998 is doubtful because this letter is not referred to by the bank in its communications dated 11.9.1998, Ex.PW2/7 and the reply to notice vide letter dated 29.9.1998.

5. I completely agree with the aforesaid findings and the conclusions of the Trial Court. At the outset, I must refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Caltex (India) Ltd. vs. Bhagwan Devi Marodia, AIR 1969 SC 405, and the ratio of which judgment of Supreme Court lays down that there cannot be extension of a lease, unless, an option to extend the lease is exercised specifically within a period as provided for, inasmuch as, time is the essence of the contract in such cases and the tenant in equity cannot overcome the consequences of neglect on his part and which could have been avoided by reasonable diligence. I completely agree with the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court as to the lack of genuineness of the letter dated 6.4.1998 inasmuch as it is inconceivable that a huge bank like State Bank of India, for sending of such an important letter, would use the basis of UPC, when hundreds and hundreds of letters everyday on behalf of the bank are sent by the registered post AD. A letter as important as the letter dated 6.4.1998 exercising an option to renew a lease, therefore, cannot be said to be one which would have been sent by UPC. More importantly no internal correspondence or other documents of the bank have been filed to show the decision to extend the lease and accordingly send the necessary communication to the landlords. Obviously, the concerned officers of the bank did not do their homework and thereafter, having realized their mistake, this letter dated 6.4.1998 was thereafter contrived. I may also add that the argument as raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant-bank that there is a mention of this letter in the reply notice dated 29.9.1998 is an argument not only of desperation but on the contrary it proves the fact that the appellant-bank was trying to play fast and loose. This I say so because even in the reply notice dated 29.9.1998 issued by the appellant-bank to the landlords/respondents, there is no specific date mentioned of the letter by which the option was exercised. Obviously, by this date when the reply to notice was sent, the UPC would not have been procured by the concerned officer of the appellant-bank who must have been in hot waters, therefore, this date was not mentioned in the reply dated 29.9.1998. It is only when the UPC must have been procured, that a specific date was mentioned in a subsequent notice sent by the appellant-bank dated 19.12.1998. Such practices on behalf of a responsible bank such as the appellant-bank needs to be very strongly deprecated.