The bank was given an option to get the lease renewed for two terms of five years each provided it gives numberice for renewal of the lease each time one month prior to the expiration of the period of lease.
Admittedly, the rent under the lease for the period up to 31st March, 1991 was Rs.
The amount being deposited by the bank after 31st March, 1991 was at the rate of Rs.
10,876/ .
It has thus been claimed that the bank is number tenant for any fixed term period but is a monthly tenant.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, the owners sought eviction of the bank on the sole ground of expiry of the period of the lease under clause e of sub section 1 of Section 11 of Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 for short the Act .
The bank has claimed to be a tenant month to month.
Now, the bank by letter dated 24th April, 1991 requested the plaintiffs for renewal of lease but the plaintiffs did number agree and requested for vacation of the premises.
13,595/ per month in place of Rs.
The suit was resisted by the bank, inter alia, pleading that the bank has been in occupation of the premises as tenant since 1963 and from time to time the rent has been enhanced.
In revision petition, however, judgment and decree of the trial companyrt has been set aside by the High Court.
The bank exercised this option one month prior to 31st March, 1986 and accordingly the lease was renewed for the period from 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1991 at a monthly rent of Rs.
It has also been stated in the plaint that after expiry of lease on 31st March, 1991, the bank used to deposit the rent in the account of the plaintiffs in their branch but that was without their companysent and mere payment of rent without companysent would number create any fresh tenancy.
13,595/ per month.
10,876/ per month.
It has been, inter alia, alleged in the plaint that the bank was inducted as a tenant in the premises for a fixed period of five years companymencing from 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1986 through a registered deed of lease.
The bank pleaded that it regularly deposited the rent in the account of the plaintiffs and they were withdrawing the rent so deposited every month after 31st March, 1991 at the enhanced rate of rent of Rs.
A decree for eviction on the ground above stated was passed by the trial companyrt directing the bank to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiffs.
The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
The bank was asked to vacate the premises by 31st May, 1991 under plaintiffs letter dated 22nd April, 1991.
The increased rent as aforestated was deposited after 31st March, 1991.
The question to be companysidered, therefore, is as to the effect of payment of enhanced rent by the bank to the owners.
It is also number the case where standard rent fixed by any authority has been paid.
The present is number a case of the payment and acceptance of the rent which was stipulated in the lease deed.
A suit seeking a decree of eviction of the bank from the premises was filed by the owners.
United Commercial Bank respondent No.1 is the tenant.
10,876/ .
Respondent No.2 is an officer of the bank.
The High Court has further held that the plaintiffs asked the bank as per their letter dated 5th September, 1992 to deposit the rent of the premises at the increased rate and the bank deposited rent at the enhanced rate which amount was withdrawn by the plaintiffs.
B 3 and B 4.
The High Court has recorded the finding of fact that even after expiry of period of lease, rent of the premises at the increased rate, as per request of the plaintiffs, was regularly deposited by the defendant in their bank in the accounts of the plaintiffs which have been subsequently withdrawn by them.
It seems that before 31st March, 1991, the bank did number exercise option for renewal of the lease.
The bank pleaded that the amount is being paid as monthly rent as per its letter dated 7th September, 1991 addressed to the owners and after discussion, they agreed to receive the said enhanced rent and are withdrawing the same.
K.SABHARWAL, J. The appellants and respondents 3 to 7 are owners and landlords of the premises in question.
