(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 1431 OF 2004 Pramod Tejmal Bora, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Business, .. Appellant R/o. Shirur, Taluka : Patoda, (Original District : Beed. plaintiff) versus The Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Beed, Head office at Rajuri Ves, Beed, through : A) The Manager of the Head Office at Beed; B) The Agent of its Branch .. Respondents at Shirur, (Original Taluka : Patoda, defendants) District : Beed. ....................... Mr. S.D. Ingale, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate, for the appellant. (2) Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate, for respondent nos.1A and 1B. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, extensively. 2. The decree in favour of the plaintiff, against the Bank, was tested in Regular Civil Appeal No. 162/1993 before the learned District Judge at Beed, and the learned Judge by order dated 7-1-2004, modified the same and the decree to the extent of recovery of Rs. 8,150/- was held as good. This order is subject to criticism on behalf of the plaintiff. 3. The record illustrate, that the premises of the plaintiff was let out to the Bank. There was controversy about the payment of rent, as to whether it should be Rs. 1630/- per month and if so, what was the effective date. The plaintiff asserts that the enhanced rent would be paid from 1-1-1985 onwards. However, the first appellate court found that there is no written (3) agreement placed to that effect on record, nor letter of the Bank accepting such eventuality is surfacing. 4. Mr. S.D. Ingale, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, informs, it was a joint application made by the Bank and the plaintiff for valuation of the building to B. & C. Department and in the application, it was specifically informed that valuation is to be made with effect from 1-1-1985 and consequently, according to him, it should be applicable from 1-1-1985. 5. The valuation report was received in July 1986. Till then, the plaintiff was receiving rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the Bank. The plaintiff asserts that the enhanced rent should have been Rs. 1630/- from 1-1-1985. The court negatived the same on appreciation of the document. The award, in the situation, of the learned first appellate court, for Rs. 8,150/-, does not require interference by way of any enhancement. However, since the plaintiff, appellant, is litigating since 1993 for rental arrears, he should not be deprived for the user thereof as the Bank stalled the payment. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 8,150/- shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 8 % per annum from 7-1-2004 till it is realized, subject to earlier payment, if any. (4) 6. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa1431