Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amichand vs Punjab National Bank And Others on 2 August, 2021
101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9942-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision : August 02, 2021
Amichand .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank and others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Dharam Bir Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Bainola, Advocate for the respondents.
***
LISA GILL, J.
This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing
due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.
CM-7871-CWP-2021
Prayer in the application is for placing on record lease deed dated
30.01.2020 as Annexure P9). Same is taken on record subject to just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
CM-7869-CWP-2021
Filing of certified as well as typed copies of Annexure P9 is
exempted.
Application is disposed of.
CWP-9942-2021
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent - bank not
to vacate the premises which it had taken on lease from the petitioner in
November, 2019 as per agreement/lease deed dated 30.01.2020. It is submitted that
as per terms and conditions of the deed, premises were leased out for a period of 15
years, commencing from 01.12.2019 till 30.11.2034 . Amount of rent was fixed for
the first five years and thereafter rate of escalation was also provided. It is
submitted that clause 18 of the lease deed that the lessee bank reserves the right to
1 of 2
CWP-9942-2021 (O&M) -2-
vacate the leased premises either fully or partially by serving three months prior
notice to the leasor at any time, does not in any manner detract from the categoric
intention of the parties i.e. of lea2sing the premises for a fixed tenure which could
not be varied and the bank has arbitrarily after merging with the Punjab National
Bank vacated the premises subsequent to issuance of notice dated 14.01.2021. It is
submitted that the petitioner has spent considerable amount on the premises at the
asking of the Bank after availing loan, thus, is also entitled to compensation.
When faced with the question of maintainability of the writ petition,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere existence of an alternate
remedy does not in any manner bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. He relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union of India and others versus Tanita Constructions (P) Ltd. 2011
(5) SCC 697.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the given factual matrix, I do not find any ground whatsoever to
interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Admittedly, the dispute is purely
contractual in nature.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this
writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy/remedies as may be
available.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
as aforementioned.
(Lisa Gill)
August 02, 2021 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
