1.

That contents to para -1 are a matter of record, wherein by virtue of lease deed executed in year
2003, rental of Rs 7500/- was agreeable by your clients with bank/ branch with a increase of
15% per term and as per the same they are receiving rent @ Rs 9919/- per month as on date.
2. That in reply to contents of para-2 of your notice it appears that your client has misrepresented
and failed to disclose to you, knowingly or otherwise, the actual facts, pertaining to the matter
at hand. Let it be known to you that a offer letter was duty prepared by the bank in December
2017 with proposal of enhancement in rental and wherein bank asked the landlord for certain
repairs and development in the premise leased., and subsequent registration of lease deed by
him. The letter was given to your client’s late husband for his approval, but it could not be
culminated into a contract as your client failed to come forward and execute the lease deed and
consent to the proposal in writing. Thus, kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other,
with the result that no agreement and no subsequent lease deed could be executed after expiry
of lease in year 2013 till his demise in January 2019. It is also true that bank/ breach wanted to
surrender part premises measuring 1367 sq. ft as it was not required being a small breach with
less business, not much area was required, but your clients here too failed to take possession of
the area surrendered. Kindly also take note that till date your clients kept on accepting the
agreed rental from period year 2013 till January 2019, when the late sh. Ram Swaroop Padha
expired, and after his demise the rental in being received by your clients. But till date no one
from landlords’ family has shown interest for executing further rental contract and execution of
lease deed with the bank branch despite several calls and visits by the bank managers at samba
branch, hence in light of above facts, this notice is not surprising but unwarranted. Bank branch
has been completely ignored and kept in dilemma by the landlords for last few days, with the
result that the bank/branch premises, which is in very bad shape with depilated roof, floor and
walls with the leaking water and cracked walls etc. the premises need complete repairs.
However, with no interest shown by landlords despite information of requirement of urgent
repairs, no one shown interest in this regard on the visit to the premises let/ leased, now it has
become difficult to bank/ branch officials to work in existing depilated conditions, wherein bank/
branch has suffered in enhancing its business last few years at existing building forcing it to look
for a new premises nearby.
3. That contents of para 3 may be a matter of record and needs no reply.
4. That contents of para 4 are false averments and denied. Had the landlords entered into a
agreement with the bank/ branch, a lease deed would have been duly registered to the effect.
However, nothing happened as the landlord kept delaying the matter on one pretext pr the
other.
5. That contents of para 5 of your notice are self-confessed averments by your clients i.e., the
landlords, which show that my client had approached them positively with a proposal for future
execution of a lease deed with request for surrender of part area as it was not required by them
and subsequent enhancement in rental was given in the offer., but which never took shape on
laxity on part of landlords, who did not execute the same and kept delaying the matter and in
meanwhile kept accepting the existing rental, which for your kind information still continues. In
the premises it is replied that no agreement could be reached, and no lease deed came to be
affected., rental as such continued at the previously agreed rate and was accepted by your client
as is evident from bank statement at hand. It is also wrong to state that bank got something
demolished. However, bank asked for repairs and renovation which has never been done till
 date as per desired guidelines. Bank after surrender of part premises measuring 1367 sq. ft
wanted to retain remaining 1651 sq. ft @ Rs 14.53 sq. ft, which would ensure Rs 24,000/- as
monthly rental to landlord and wanted lease deed to that effect to be executed by landlord for
lease term of five years certain w.e.f 20-01-2013 with two options of five years each with
increase in rent during each option period. However, the landlord failed to proceed in the
matter. Later again in year 2016 the matter was taken up with him and as per new site plan
prepared with his consent, which showed a carpet area of 1321 sq. ft, which @ Rs 14.53 sq. ft
would ensure Rs 19,194/- per month rental to the landlord. Again, the landlord failed to issue
any consent latter and execute further lease deed.
6. That in reply to averments in para 6 it is stated that the landlord failed to respond positively to
banks offers. Details of which are elaborated in para 5 of my reply. It is also denied that same
civil work / repairs were undertaken by your clients towards renovation of the let out built area,
in absence of any contact or execution of same was not possible due to non-cooperation of the
landlord of the premises in performing his part of the obligations due to which the revised rental
as preposed never came to be enhanced. Here it is retreated again that it is not the bank but the
landlord who failed to execute the lease deed despite the bank authorities approaching him
again and again many times for the same.