Central Bank Of INDIA vs. Parminder Kaur

Facts

The appellant, Central Bank of India, sought an extension of six months to vacate premises it occupied, having been ordered to do so by 30.09.2019. The bank cited difficulties in finding alternative accommodation. The respondent, Parminder Kaur, is the owner of the premises. The Court noted that the bank was attempting to secure new premises of approximately 1400 sq. ft. in the same locality for Rs. 1,93,283/- per month, which included GST. The premises in question are significantly larger, measuring 2200 sq. yards. The Court was considering the application for extension of time to vacate.

Held

The Court granted the appellant an extension of time to vacate the premises until 31.03.2020. This extension is subject to the appellant paying user charges to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, excluding GST, effective from 01.10.2019 until the premises are vacated. The appellant is also responsible for paying electricity and water charges as per actuals and clearing any arrears of these charges before vacating. The user charges fixed for the extended period are without prejudice to the contentions and rights of the parties regarding the fixation of mesne profits by the learned Trial Court, an issue that remains pending. An undertaking to comply with these directions is to be filed by both parties within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant, Central Bank of India, should be granted an extension of time to vacate the premises beyond the previously ordered date of 30.09.2019, considering its status as a bank and the challenges in finding alternative accommodation. Contentions: Petitioner (Central Bank of India): Argued that due to constraints in securing new premises, an extension of six months is necessary. They highlighted their efforts to find new accommodation and the difficulties encountered. Respondent (Parminder Kaur): While not explicitly recorded as making separate arguments on the extension, the respondent's position is implicitly that of seeking the vacation of premises as per the original order, with the Court then imposing conditions for the extended period.