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: D.P.Mohapatro, S,Rajendra Babu

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     Leave granted.

     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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

of  station  and  sought for 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 the High  Court  and remit  the  matter  to  the  Rent  Controller  for  a  fresh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.