M/S The Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd vs Uco Bank
2015 Latest Caselaw 5683 Del

$~44.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       CS(OS) 1783/2015 and I.A. 12430-33/2015
        M/S THE RAMESHWARA JUTE MILLS LTD        ..... Plaintiff
                      Through: Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Advocate

                           versus

        UCO BANK                                       ..... Defendant
                           Through: Mr. Rajesh Rattan, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                           ORDER

% 06.08.2015

1. The Court is informed that vide order dated 05.06.2015, the suit

was directed to be listed today before the Joint Registrar for

completion of pleadings and admission and denial of documents.

2. Mr. Rattan, learned counsel for the defendant/bank states that

he has filed the written statement on 09.07.2015 with a copy to the

other side, wherein a preliminary objection with regard to

maintainability of the present suit has been taken. He explains that

the suit premises is a public premises and is governed under the Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter

referred to as "the PP Act") and vide notice dated 25.07.2006, the

lease deed of the plaintiff/company had been terminated but as the

plaintiff had continued to occupy the suit premises, resultantly,

eviction proceedings had to be initiated against the plaintiff as long

back as in the year 2008.

3. The Court is informed that the eviction proceedings initiated

against the plaintiff under the PP Act, registered as Eviction Case

No.1/2008 is at an advance stage of recording of evidence and the

next date of hearing fixed before the Estate Officer is 17.08.2015.

Learned counsel for the defendant/Bank states that in view of the bar

placed under Section 15 of the PP Act, the present suit is liable to be

dismissed.

4. Counsel for the plaintiff states that it was on account of an

emergency that the present suit had to be instituted as the

defendant/Bank was trying to illegally dispossess the plaintiff from a

part of the suit premises situated on the fourth floor measuring 950

sq. feet, described in the plaint as a "party room". He concedes that

eviction proceedings have been initiated against the plaintiff and it is

participating in the said proceedings. Learned counsel states that the

plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the present suit and seek its

remedies against the defendant/Bank as may be available to it in law,

but till some interim orders are passed in the said proceedings, the

interim order dated 05.06.2015, passed in the suit may be permitted

to remain in operation.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the

plaintiff, the present suit is disposed of. The plaintiff shall appear

before the Estate Officer on 17.08.2015, and on any further dates as

may be fixed so that the eviction proceedings under the PP Act can be

concluded. However, the interim order dated 05.06.2015, shall

continue to operate in favour of the plaintiff for a period of three

weeks from today, so that in this duration, it can approach the

competent court vested with jurisdiction to seek appropriate interim

orders as prayed for in the present suit.

6. If the plaintiff files an interim application before the Estate

Officer on or before the date fixed, i.e., 17.08.2015, and for some

reason the same cannot be decided before the expiry of three weeks,

i.e., on or before 27.08.2015, then the interim order passed in the

present proceedings shall continue to operate till a decision is taken on

the said application. While deciding the said application the Estate

Officer shall be at liberty to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the

arguments addressed by both sides and remain uninfluenced by the

order dated 05.6.2015.

7. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J AUGUST 06, 2015/rkb/ap