LAW FOR ALL

EVICTION OF A BANK = A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is marked as Ex.A4, was issued by the plaintiff. After expiry of the lease, even though the defendant bank continued to be in the occupation of the premises in question as a tenant holding over, after expiry of the first option exercised by the bank, the bank has to vacate the premises, and if it does not vacate, it can be said to be unauthorized tenancy. It is not the case of appellants that the notice under Ex.A4 is not in accordance with the provisions of the Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. When once Ex.A4 notice is in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there is no other defence available to the tenant. He has no right to continue in the premises and vacate the premises. ; It is not in dispute that it is agreed between the parties that for every five years, there is an increase of 20% in the rent. If that is taken into consideration, certainly, the landlord is entitled to a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month towards damages for use and occupation of the premises in question by the defendants bank from 1.4.2009. Hence, the damages granted by the trial Court for use and occupation of the premises in question by the second defendant bank are modified, and the defendants are directed to pay damages @ Rs.24,000/- per month from 1.4.2009 till the date of vacating the premises.