Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3863 (ALL)

Union Bank of India v. Ved Prakash

2016-11-30

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Shri S.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.N. Agarwal for the opposite party. 2. This S.C.C. Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jalaun at Orai in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2013, whereby the suit for arrears of rent, damages and eviction has been decreed. 3. The contention of counsel for the revisionist/tenant is that there was an agreement between the tenant and the landlord whereby the property in question was let out for a period of 15 years and the rent agreed upon was Rs. 12 per Sq. feet of the carpet area. The suit for eviction was therefore, wrongly filed during the currency of the term of the lease. 4. The second contention raised is that the damages at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month has wrongly and illegally been imposed by the impugned order. 5. Shri B.N. Agarwal counsel for the landlord has supported the impugned order. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order under challenge. 7. The alleged lease agreement has not been accepted by the Court below on the reasoning that it purports to be a lease agreement for a term of 15 years. Under law the same necessarily required registration. Since this agreement was not registered, the same was not admissible in evidence. 8. I do not find any illegality in the approach or the finding returned in this regard. 9. Besides the agreement not being a registered one, it cannot be accepted that the lease was for a fixed term. Moreover, the tenancy has been terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which has been found to be a valid and legal notice. Under the circumstances therefore, the first contention of learned counsel for the revisionist cannot be accepted. 10. On the question of the quantum of damages imposed, Shri B.N. Agarwal has submitted that the rent was found to be Rs. 24,000/- per month. The landlord had claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month relying upon lease agreements of another Bank situated in the adjoining area. The Court below has only granted damages at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month. The landlord had claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month relying upon lease agreements of another Bank situated in the adjoining area. The Court below has only granted damages at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month on the ground that no cogent evidence had been filed by the landlord in support of his claim of damages at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month. He submits that although the finding returned by the Court below is perverse, the landlord is not challenged the order on this ground, but he is only submitting that the damages that have been awarded cannot be said to be excessive. 11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to effectively rebutted the submissions made by Shri B.N. Agarwal. 12. In view of the submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the damages awarded by the impugned order cannot be said to be excessive or without any basis. The impugned order therefore calls for no interference on this ground, either. 13. Since contentions of learned counsel for the revisionist have been repelled, the revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.