A tenant is liable for arrears of rent even if the premises become unfit for the purpose for which they were leased, unless the unfitness is caused by the landlord's act or neglect.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State Bank of Patiala (deft.) against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge by which he directed the appellant to deposit rent at Rs. 1,02, 600. 00 p. m. with effect from 1. 11. 1990. The respondents are the landlords. Admittedly, the building was under seal from 15. 10. 1990 by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ("ndmc" ). Later the NDMC desealed the premises in May, 1991 and when this appeal came up for hearing before us, the appellant Bank was having possession of the building, though the appellant Bank was not putting the building to any use and had hired another building at huge rent.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the respondents in 1993 for eviction of the appellant (deft. 1), and for recovery of Rs. 24,62,400. 00 towards arrears of rent from 1. 11. 1990 to 31. 10. 1992 and for damages and mesne profits. The lease in favour of the appellant is dated 1. 10. 1983 in respect of the second and mezzanine floors of the building known as Regal Building (East), New Delhi, admeasuring 8000 square feet on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,02. 6go. 00 for 5 years. It was executed by the 2nd deft. who sold the premises to plaintiffs. It was subject to renewal for a further period of 5 years, and to increase in rent by 20%. All taxes, levies and charges imposed by the Local Bodies were payable by the tenant. The appellant Bank attorned to the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the pff. the appellant stopped paying rent from 1. 11. 1990 on the "pretext" of the roof having fallen down and according to the pff. the appellant tenant was responsible for the damage to the building inasmuch as the appellant was not permitting the owners to conduct repairs to the building. In spite of several requests, the appellant did not handover possession to the respondents. The appellant Bank got the building sealed by the NDMC from 15. 10. i990 u/ss. 113, 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Though the plaintiffs obtained permission for conducting repairs, the appellant Bank refused to give possession to the owners for conducting repairs.

( 4 ) IN 1983, when the lease commenced, the appellant Bank, no doubt, had the protection of the of the Rent Control Act but in 1988, the DRC Act ceased to apply to buildings with rent above Rs. 3,500. 00 p. m. After the expiry of the 5 year lease period on 15. 9. 1988, the appellant became a monthly tenant by holding over. The respondents sent a registered notice dated 12. 8. 1991 terminating the tenancy and asking the appellant to vacate the premises by 15. 9. 1991. Another notice was sent on 10. 9. 1992, terminating the tenancy and directing the bank to vacate by 31. i0. 1992. According to the respondents. the appellant became a trespasser with effect from 1. 11,1992 and arrears of rent from 1. 11. 1990 to 31. 10. 1992 came to Rs. 24. 62. 400. 00 and interest Rs. 7386. 00. damages from 1. 11. 1992 till date of suit at Rs 2 lakh p. m. to 6. 11. 1992 and future damages at Rs. 2 lakh p m. in addition to inquiry by a Local Commissioner.

( 5 ) ON 8. 8. 1995, when this appeal came before us, we were told that the Back had rented another premises on huge rent and shifted there, that it was not using the present premises, nor vacating the premises and by that time, according to pff. , it had become liable for at least Rs. 60 lakhs or more towards profits, in other words, it was paying a huge rent for it new premises taken on rent and became subject to claim for arrears of rent/ profits from 1. 11. 1990 in a sum said to exceed Rs. 60 lakhs. We found that, if the pff. respondents should succeed in its claim for profits, the Bank being a public sector Bank lakhs of money would have to be shelled down for this building which the Bank has not been using for years.

( 6 ) AS we found the attitude of the Bank, highly detrimental to public interest and as public monies were involved, we passed an order on 8. 8. 1995 issuing notice to the Secretary (Finance), Banking Division, Govt. of