Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KM. CHANDRA GOVINDJI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/11/2000
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu, & D.P. Mohapatra.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J.
Leave granted.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
The respondent is owner of a premises at Kasia Road,
Deoria which was tenanted to the appellant-Bank. The land
in which the said premises is situated measures
approximately 12,000 square feet and the built area under
the occupation of the appellant-Bank as a tenant is
approximately 2,933 square feet at a rent of Rs. 300/- per
month. In the said building the appellant-Bank had located
its branch for several decades. Subsequently the rent was
sought to be enhanced at Rs. 1,350/- per month from
01.10.1984 to 30.09.1989 with a further renewal on increase
of rent @ 25% on the rent of Rs. 1,350/-. However, this
proposal of the respondent was not accepted by the
appellant. The respondent apart from filing a civil suit
for eviction of the appellant also filed an application for
enhancement of rent under Section 21(8) Proviso I thereto of
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondent relied upon a valuation
report given by Shri J.P. Aggarwal dated 11.12.1985
assessing the market value of the building at Rs.
16,50,000/-. On the basis of this report the respondent
claimed a rent of Rs. 13,750/- per month from 01.01.1986.
The appellant-Bank resisted the said claim by contending
that the premises in question was 70 years old and was in
dilapidated condition and its depreciated value would not
exceed Rs. 1 lakh. The respondent filed her own affidavit
and that of Shri J.P. Aggarwal, the Valuer, in support of
her case. On 29.10.1992 the appellant-Bank sought for an
adjournment by filing an application on the ground that the
Advocate had to go out of station for medical treatment and
consequently the matter was adjourned on payment of costs.
Next date fixed for hearing was 11.11.1992, when the Rent
Controller did not hold the sittings and the matter was
adjourned to 13.11.1992. On that date certain documents
were produced alongwith photostat of the Valuers report
dated 11.7.1988 showing the value of the building at Rs.
1,76,000/- and the matter was adjourned for further hearing
to 24.11.1992. On 24.11.1992 Advocate for the appellant
filed an application stating that on account of compelling
personal reasons he had to go out of station and sought for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
an adjournment. However, the adjournment was not granted on
that application and the same was dismissed 24.11.1992.
However, the matter was set down for orders on 30.11.1992.
In the meanwhile, on 28.11.1992 the appellant-Bank filed an
application seeking to recall the order made on 24.11.1992
on the ground that the Advocate having taken ill had gone to
Gorakhpur for medical examination on 24.11.1992. However,
this application was not taken note of by the Rent
Controller. On 30.11.1992 the appellant-Bank filed
application before the Rent Controller which was kept on
file and the matter was set down for arguments on 1.12.1992.
The applications filed earlier were not heard. By its order
made on 21.1.1993 the Rent Controller allowed the
application filed by the respondent and fixed the rent at
Rs. 13,750/- per month. Against the said order an
application was preferred to the District Judge who
dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the Rent
Controller. The matter was carried to the High Court. The
High Court also dismissed the civil miscellaneous writ
petition filed by the appellant-Bank. Hence this appeal.
Shri Harish Salve, the learned Solicitor General
appearing for the appellant-Bank, submitted that in the
facts and circumstances of this case there is hardly any
justification for the Rent Controller to have refused to
adjourn the case on 24.11.1992 which was explained to be one
beyond the control of the appellants Advocate as he had
fallen ill and had to go to Gorakhpur for medical
examination on 24.11.1992.
Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondent, submitted that the Rent
Controller, the learned District Judge and the High Court
having examined the matter and having found that the
appellant-Bank had not availed of the reasonable opportunity
provided from stage to stage and having not adduced
evidence, it was not permissible now to contend that they
did not have reasonable opportunity to put forward their
case.
The High Court in the course of its order noticed that
the application for adjournment on 24.11.1992 having been
dismissed, fate of another application filed on 30.11.1992,
need not be examined. It further noticed that the authority
had given a clear finding that repeated opportunities had
been given to the appellant but it had not availed of the
same to adduce any evidence. In view of this, the
contention to the contrary has no merit.
In ascertaining whether a party had reasonable
opportunity to put forward his case or not, one should not
ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought
for. The earlier adjournments, if any, granted would
certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not
be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment
is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground.
The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought
for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had
been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been
rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as
the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all
missed the essence of the matter.
In that view of the matter, we set aside the order made
by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the District Judge and@@
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
the High Court and remit the matter to the Rent Controller@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
for a fresh consideration from the stage when the matter was
set down on 24.11.1992 and after notice to the parties
proceed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible.
The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances of the
case there shall be no orders as to costs.@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ