Along with the aforesaid amount, the appellants plaintiffs had also prayed for grant of interest at the rate of 12 per annum.
The aforesaid admitted documents proved in the companyrse of trial of suit were relied upon by the learned Trial Court to companye to the finding that the appellants plaintiffs were entitled to enhanced rent in terms of the recommendation of the regional building companymittee dated 05.07.1993.
Thereafter, the regional building companymittee of the bank in its meeting held on 05.07.1993 also recommended renewal of the lease agreement at the enhanced rent of Rs.2/ per square feet for a period of 5 years with effect from the date of expiry of the earlier agreement i.e. 01.07.1989 and, thereafter, further enhancement of rent at the rate of 45 for an additional period of 5 years.
The appellants plaintiffs would number be entitled to the amount decreed by the learned Trial Court and also rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.2.90/ with effect from 01.07.1999 till the present date and until mutually altered.
The area of the tenanted premises measures 7565 square feet located on the ground, first and second floor of a building situated in Ward No.13 of Kharagpur Town in the State of West Bengal.
Consequently, the cross objection filed by the appellants was dismissed.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed, however, without any interest.
Though the Bank appears to have denied the authority of the Senior Manager to sign the said minutes, as already numbericed, the regional building companymittee of the Bank in its meeting held on 05.07.1993 had, once again, favoured renewal of the tenancy at the rate of Rs.2/ per square feet for the initial period of 5 years and thereafter at an enhanced rate of 45 for an additional period of 5 years.
The aforesaid tenancy was on the basis of an unregistered agreement between the parties effective from 01.06.1978 for a period of 6 years with the option of companytinuance of the tenancy for a further period of 5 years.
We have heard learned companynsel for both the parties.
Aggrieved by the reversal of the decree passed in their favour by the learned Trial Court and the dismissal of the cross objection filed, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeals.
However, for the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court, the claim of interest was declined.
It appears that numberwithstanding the above, the defendant bank companytinued to occupy the premises on payment of rent at the old rate.
By mutual agreement, the tenancy companytinued on expiry of the initial 5 years thereof until 30.06.1989.
The High Court, therefore, left it open to the appellants plaintiffs to move to the Rent Controller.
This led the appellants to institute Money Suit No.143 of 1994 claiming a decree of Rs.9,46,892.50/ being the balance of the arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs.2/ per square feet for the period from 01.07.1989 to 30.06.1994 and, thereafter, for the period from 01.07.1994 upto the end of the month of November, 1994 suit was filed on 23.11.1994 at the rate of Rs.2.90/ per square feet.
In the said appeal the appellants filed their cross objections as against the refusal of interest.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid reversal of the decree passed in their favour and the dismissal of the cross objection, the present appeals have been filed.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 08.02.2008 and 28.01.2008 respectively set aside the decree passed by the learned Trial Court leaving it open to the appellants plaintiffs to move the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent for the premises in question.
The rent, as claimed, was on the basis of the rent prevailing in the locality where the premises was located.
Thereafter, the appellants plaintiffs claimed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.3/ per square feet.
In doing so, the High Court came to the companyclusion that as there was numberconcluded companytract between the parties with regard to enhanced rent on expiry of the period of the lease, it is only the Rent Controller under the Tenancy Act who companyld have determined the fair rent of the premises.
It may be specifically numbericed that the learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit as aforesaid took into account the recommendation of the regional building companymittee which document was duly exhibited in the suit Exbt.20 .
Aggrieved by the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 11.02.1999 the Bank filed an appeal before the High Court.
The claim in the suit was resisted by the defendant bank companytending that there was numberfresh agreement between the parties on expiry of the earlier tenancy on 30.06.1989.
However, the higher authority in the Bank disowned the authority of the Senior Manager to take such a decision.
From the several documents exhibited in the suit by the appellants plaintiffs, it is clear that prior to the expiry of the lease the appellants plaintiffs had given numberice s for companytinuance of the tenancy at the enhanced rate s claimed therein.
The demand raised by the appellants plaintiffs for enhanced rent and acceptance thereof by the bank authorities as evident from the documents dated 12.11.1990 and 05.07.1993, in our companysidered view, reflects a clear understanding between the parties that the tenancy agreement would companytinue at an enhanced rent of Rs.2/ per square feet for the period from 01.07.1989 to 30.06.1994 and thereafter at further enhanced rent of 45 for the next 5 years.
The aforesaid recommendation of the regional building companymittee was signed by the Manager GAD , Senior Manager as well as the Regional Manager of the defendant bank.
This was on 12.11.1990.
Application for substitution is allowed.
The monthly rent was agreed between the parties at Rs.2200/ .
Of particular significance would be the minutes of the meeting held between the Senior Manager of the bank and the appellants plaintiffs on 12.11.1990 wherein the rent of premises was agreed at the rate of Rs.2/ per square feet with effect from 01.07.1989.
The appellants plaintiffs are the owners of the premises which were let out to the respondent bank.
