Court No. - 30
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 33 of 2015 Revisionist :- Girish Chandra Goel And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Bank Of India Counsel for Revisionist :- Arpit Agrawal,C.K. Parekh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satish Chaturvedi Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel along with Sri Arpit Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party-State Bank of India.
Present revision has been filed challenging the judgement and decree dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit declining and refusing to grant relief of awarding damages at the rate of Rs. 45/- sq. ft (Rs. 2,50,840 per month) instead awarded only Rs. 62,000/- per month along with decree of eviction in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2012 (Girish Chandra Goel and another vs. State Bank of India).
In the present case, the finding recorded by the Court below on issue of damages to be paid by the opposite party-Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2012 till the date of vacating the premises in question is in dispute. Rest of the judgment has admittedly been given effect to between the parties. The Bank has already handed over the possession of the premises in question to the landlord.
It may be noted that against the same judgment the Bank has filed S.C.C. Revision State Bank of India Vs. Girish Chandra Goel And another, which was disposed of by this Court granting six months time to the bank to vacate the premises. A liberty was, however, given to the landlord to file recall application, in case they are disagreed by the order dated 12.01.2017 passed in the aforesaid revision.
The revisionists herein moved modification/recall application no. 40688 of 2015, which was rejected on the ground that since seeking enhancement of the damages, the revisionists have already filed revision, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected as such no modification is required. Now, in this revision findings on issue no. 4 wherein rent (damages) have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 62,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2012, are under challenge on the ground that the revisionists have filed several documents which include lease deeds of other banks, financial institutions which clearly indicated higher rate of rent and as such the revisionists are entitled for damages at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per sq. ft. per month which approximately comes to Rs. 2,50,000/- per month.
It is submitted that in the statement PW-1 has stated that the bank is ready to pay current market rate. It is further submitted that there is no occasion to reject the documentary evidence filed in support of the claim of the revisionists herein and that the rate of damages is very low in the present case.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank has submitted that while deciding the issues of rate of rent on damages various important factors that are to be taken into account have been considered by the Court, which includes availability of open spaces nearby the bank, a proper wide road and parking spaces etc. Further, no evidence regarding rate of adjoining premises of the property has been given by the landlord and, therefore, except filing the documents on record nothing further has been proved, particularly rate of rent of the adjoining premises. He further submits that in any view of the matter the rate of rent has already been enhanced to the extent of about 20-25% of the current rate of rent which warrant no interference.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of the record, I find that two lease deeds in respect of bank and one lease deed in respect of finance company have been placed on record. However, one lease deed in respect of very small piece of 80 squares ft. which is, in fact, only for the purpose of establishing ATM, has also been placed on record. Thus, it cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of enhancement.
So far as the other lease deed is concerned that is in relation of another bank wherein property of 2,000 squares feet was given on lease, however, the location of the property is nearby road crossing on by-pass road, therefore, it must be having open space, parking facilities and other facilities etc. for convenience of the customers. It is not in dispute that the present property is in congested market place and it is admitted between the parties that the bank has now been shifted to open place away from the much populated area for this reason. In such view of the matter, I do not find that the exemplars placed before the court below were correct for the purpose of enhancement of damages.
However, keeping in view that in reply to notices given by the bank, the bank agreed to enhance the rate of rent by 25% and also keeping in view that there was no evidence placed by the landlord regarding per sq. ft. rate of rent in the adjoining property, it would be in the fitness of things that the present rate of damages to be enhanced from the rate of Rs. 62,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and this, in the opinion of this Court, would serve the interest of justice.
With this observation, the revision is allowed only to the extent of this modification in the impugned judgment that damages shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2012 in place of Rs.62,000/- as directed by the court below.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 SKG