Balaram Sahoo v. Chairman, Odisha Gramya Bank, Bbsr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.607 Of 2022 (Through video conferencing mode) Balaram Sahoo ...

Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mekap, Advocate -versusChairman Odisha, Gramya Bank, BBSR and others ...

Opposite parties CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

12.01.2022 01.

1.

Mr. Mekap, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner Order No.

and submits, his client is landlord. Opposite party-bank is operating from his premises. He wants renewal of lease agreement on enhancing the rent and renovation of the premises. He made representation dated 28th December, 2020 to the bank (annexure-9). He wants direction for the bank to consider his client's representation. 2.

In the circumstances, Court does not require issuance of notice on opposite party no.2. Instead, said opposite party is directed to consider the representation dated 28th December, 2020. Petitioner will approach said opposite party with copy of the representation and this

// 2 // order. The bank will, within three weeks of communication, either renew the lease on negotiation of enhanced rent with renovation of the premises or inform petitioner to enable him to take next course of action.

3.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant