Summary
A bank tenant could not invoke deposit-refund clauses to retain premises rent-free when it had not arranged actual handover of vacant possession. The agreements required simultaneous refund and handover; a termination notice alone did not establish that the landlord had defaulted on refund. The landlady’s Rent Tribunal decree was restored. The separate dismissal of her intra-court appeal from an Article 227 order was upheld.
Issues
- Whether termination of the lease without arranging possession handover entitled the bank to rent-free occupation pending deposit refund.
- Whether an intra-court appeal lay from the Single Judge’s Article 227 decision.
Provisions considered
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaThe Single Judge’s supervisory decision was directly challenged successfully, but no intra-court appeal lay from that order in these proceedings. (¶¶ 6, 11)
Held
- The deposit agreement required refund simultaneously with the tenant vacating and giving charge of the premises. The bank produced nothing showing that it called upon the landlady to attend at a specified date and time for handover and simultaneous refund. It therefore could not invoke the non-refund consequences to justify continued rent-free use. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10)
- The Single Judge’s decision sustaining the Appellate Rent Tribunal was unsustainable. Civil Appeal 6096/2017 was allowed and the Rent Tribunal’s 10 April 2008 judgment and decree in the landlady’s favour restored. (¶ 11)
- The Division Bench correctly rejected the intra-court appeal because it challenged an order in Article 227 proceedings. Civil Appeal 6097/2017 was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own expenses. (¶¶ 6, 11)
Result
Civil Appeal 6096/2017 allowed and landlady’s Rent Tribunal decree restored. Civil Appeal 6097/2017 dismissed; parties to bear their own expenses.