Delhi District Court
Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. vs . Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure on 7 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, ND.
Civil Suit No.237/17
Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd.
Biotech International Ltd. & Anr
Plot No. 2, Local Shopping Center,
Block EFGH, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part II,
New Delhi110048
Through its CEO, Mr. Ravi Singhal, Authorised vide Board Resolution
dated 15.12.2016
........... Plaintiff No.1
VIPPS INDIA (Delhi)
A Partnership Firm,
through its partners, Mr. Saurabh Singhal
Plot No. 2, Local Shopping Center,
Block EFGH, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part II,
New Delhi110048 ...........Plaintiff No.2
Vs.
Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office At:
B183, Ground Floor, Near Park, Greater KailashI,
New Delhi110048
................ Defendant
Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 1 of 19
Date of institution of the suit : 06.02.2017
Date of reserved for judgment : 31.05.2018
Date of Pronouncement of judgment : 07.08.2018
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1.The present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,21,599 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and a sum of Rs. 9,95,516/ in favour of plaintiff no.2 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% in respect of arrears of rent,electricity, maintenance etc. is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the plaint : 2.1. Plaintiff no. 1 having its registered office at Plot no.2, Local Shopping Center, Block EFGH, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi110048 is an incorporated company. Plaintiff no. 2 is a partnership firm, and the present suit is being filed thorough Mr.Ravi Singhal CEO & AR of Plaintiff no.1 and Mr. Saurabh Singhal Partner of the plaintiff no.2. 2.2. Defendant is a real estate developer dealing in the residential, hospitality and commercial Sectors in India.
2.3 Succinctly, a lease agreement dated 03.11.2015 was executed between defendant, Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the plaintiff no.1, Biotech International Ltd., wherein the latter leased to the former, the subject property i.e. First Floor, Northern Wing, VIPPS Center, Plot No. 2, Local Shopping center, Block EFGH, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash II, New Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 2 of 19 Delhi.(herein after referred as 'suit property') 2.4 The subject property was under tenancy of defendant w.e.f 2010.2015 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,12,220/ plus service tax as applicable, payable on an advance basis each month. Additionally electricity power back up charges of a minimum of Rs. 42120 per month and water charges of Rs. 5000/ per month were payable by the defendant to the plaintiff no.2. Additionally the defendant was liable to pay charges for maintenance of Rs. 45,712 plus service Tax along with charges for actual consumption of electricity to the plaintiff no.2.
2.5 That the liability of the defendant to pay the amounts of rent to plaintiff no.1 and other charges to plaintiff no.2, these amounts arises not only from the lease deed, but also from the conduct of parties, which inter alia shows payment of the amounts by the defendant to the plaintiffs before the defendant defaulted, acceptance of dues etc. 2.6 That the present suit is not only based on the lease deed, but on the other circumstances and facts as pleaded, and documents placed, which shows the existence of the tenancy and the quantum due from the defendant to the plaintiff for the period the property and services were enjoyed but dues have not been paid.
2.7 That defendant stopped paying rent w.e.f March 2016 and rent for period March 2016 onwards remains outstanding. Plaintiff issued many reminders to the defendant however the defendant continued to commit defaults. Defendant further failed to pay to the plaintiff no.2 common maintenance charges of Rs.45,712/ plus service tax payable under the Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 3 of 19 agreement, along with other charges i.e. electricity power back up charges, water charges, charges for actual consumption of electricity and surcharge w.e.f. June 2016.
2.8 That certain cheques as detailed in para 4 (d) given by the defendant to plaintiff no.1 towards partial discharge of liabilities were dishonoured upon presentation and payment against these cheques have not been received till date; that on dated 06.10.2016 in part discharge of the liability, the defendant made an on account payment of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of cheque no. 786679 to the plaintiff no. 1. Thereafter on dated 04.11.2016 defendant itself wrote to the plaintiff no. 1 stating that it was vacating the premises with immediate effect.
2.9 That subsequent thereto on 11.11.2016 plaintiff no.1 took over the possession after prior intimation to the defendant by letter dated 10.11.2016. The letter was sent by email to the defendant and duly delivered, and the same was also pasted on the premises. Even after the possession was taken over by the plaintiff the amount as per annexure (1) plus interest are due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant in respect of previous dues. 2.10 That on 15.11.2016 a notice invoking arbitration was sent by the plaintiff no. 1 to the defendant at his address which was not delivered; the said notice was served upon the representative Sh. Chander Jeet of the defendant by hand on 15.11.2016, who had removed the items from the subject premises, which shows he was authorised by the company. 2.11 That on 22.11.2016 defendant wrote to the plaintiff no. 1 admitting that as per its books, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.
Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 4 of 19 49,99,858/ which was to be paid by the defendant towards rent and other charges, and that the defendant would vacate the premises in a day or two. 2.12 That for the period October 2015 to November 2016, various invoices were raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant. These invoices were delivered by hand at the time of tenancy of subject premises/ suit property to the defendant and all the invoices as filed herewith, were acknowledged by the defendant's representative.
2.13 That defendant enjoyed possession of the premises till 04.11.2016 and has not paid the amount specified in annexure (1). The defendant has itself on 22.11.2016 admitted a sum of Rs. 4999858 as being outstanding from it in respect of rent and other charges. The claim of the plaintiff in the suit is lesser than the sum being admitted by the defendant. 2.14 Thus the total claim as on the date of filing of the suit is Rs.37,21,599/ qua plaintiff no.1 and Rs. 9,95,516/ qua plaintiff no.2, and a further claim for interest @ 15% p.a pendent lite, and further interest till date of payment on the said amount.(as detailed in Para 6 of the plaint). Hence the present suit filed by the plaintiff.
3. WRITTEN STATEMENT/ DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANT 3.1 In reply to the present suit, WS was filed on behalf of defendant. Preliminarily objections has been raised by the defendant.
3.2 It is stated that the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the plaint does not confirm to the High Court Rules and Orders; not supported with appropriate affidavit; averments of the plaint are false, unnecessary and scandalous; plaint does not disclose any cause of Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 5 of 19 action and therefore liable to be rejected by virtue of O 7 R 11 CPC; Plaintiff have not come with clean hands and based their plaint wholly on concocted and imaginative lines; plaintiff have not approached the court with true and correct facts but have attempted to hammer facts just to make out a case.
3.3 It is averred that plaint itself discloses that the plaintiff had earlier sought to invoke arbitration and had even approached the court. However the plaintiff withdrew the said arbitration petition and have not filed the plaintiff suit, this shows that the plaintiff are merely forum hunting.
3.4 That the suit is not maintainable in terms of Sec69 of Indian Partnership Act 1932 as Plaintiff no. 2 purportedly is an unregistered firm. 3 3.5. Further that the alleged lease deed in question is unregistered and not stamped and in terms of bar created by Sec. 17 of the Registration Act and Sec35of the Stamp Act, the document is inadmissible and can not be read in evidence for any purpose.
3.6. That the documents relied upon in the plaint including the letter dated 04.11.2016 and 22.11.2016 and invoices are forged and fabricated documents as the said letter were never issued or executed by the defendant or any of its authorized representatives, nor the invoices were ever acknowledged by and on its behalf. The said persons are unknown to the defendant. The documents have been forged using the stolen letter heads of the defendant company which were lying in tenanted premises when it was forcibly taken by the plaintiff in absence of the representative of the defendant.
3.7 That the defendant was a tenant of only the plaintiff no.1 in the Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 6 of 19 said premises for last over 8 year and had a month to month tenancy and the fact has been deliberately concealed by the plaintiffs from this court. That the defendant had on some occasions made payments to the plaintiff no.2 on request of the plaintiff no.1 and that there was no tenancy relationship between him and plaintiff no.2.
3.8 That the cheques were issued as security towards the tenancy and not to discharge any legally recoverable debt or liability. And after it were dishonoured, P1 and defendant had mutually agreed that the money spent by the defendant towards improvements, in the form of fittings, fixtures etc, of the premises + Rs 5lakhs would be adjusted as full and final settlement towards the outstanding dues of rent and thereafter defendant shall not be liable to pay any further payments to P1.
3.9 That the present suit is absolutely bogus, frivolous and untenable under the law therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed on merits also
4. REPLICATION 4.1 Plaintiff filed replication denying all the submissions made in the WS, and reiterating all the averments made in the plaint. Besides others, it was specifically denied that any improvements were made by the defendant in the suit property. It is stated that entire premises was well furnished in terms of the lease deed and the same can definitely be relied for collateral purposes to show the status of the property; the alleged oral settlement was specifically denied; the cheques towards security were also denied, interalia reiterating the contents of the plaint.
5. ISSUES Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 7 of 19 Before proceedings further, I must state that in the present case issues were framed, which are read as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of suit amount as claimed in prayer clause of (a) & (b) of the suit? OPP
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate for what period? OPP.
3 Whether the suit is not maintainable in terms of the preliminary objections in para 11 raised by the defendant ? OPD.
4. Whether the letter dated 04.11.2016 and 20.11.2016 alleged to be written by the defendant are forged and fabricated? OPD
5. Whether the tenancy between the plaintiff no. 1 and defendant was month to month tenancy that existed for last 8 years before filing of the suit? OPD
6. Whether there was a mutual oral understanding between the parties vide which improvement made on the tenanted premises by the defendant was agreed to be adjusted against the full and final settlement of the arrears of rent? OPD 7 Whether the issue no. 5 is in the form of set off/counterclaim and liable to be rejected for deficiency of court fees? OPP
8. Relief.
6. Plaintiff Evidence 6.1. In plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined Sh. Ravi Singhal as PW1 vide his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A, reiterating the contents of the plaint. The documents relied upon by PW1 are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 8 of 19 Ex. PW1/16 6.2. Further plaintiff has also examined Shri Saurabh Singhal, as PW2 vide his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW2/A. PW2 had relied upon the documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/2.
6.3 Further plaintiff has also examined Shri Kapil Malik, Chief Manager Finance of plaintiff no.1 as PW3 vide his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW3/1. PW3 had relied upon the document exhibited as Ex. PW3/1. 6.4 Further plaintiff has also examined Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Account Executive of plaintiff no. 2 as PW4 vide his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW4/A. PW had relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex. PW4/1 & Ex. PW4/2(colly).
6.5 Further plaintiff has also examined Ms. Pushpa Kothari, Assistant Manager Finance of plaintiff no. 1 as PW5 vide his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW5/A. PW5 had relied upon the document exhibited as Ex. PW5/1.
6.6. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed by the plaintiff.
7. Defendant Evidence 7.1. Vide order dated 06.03.2018 the right of the defendant to lead their evidence had been closed. The said order was not challenged thereafter and had attained finality.
This is the entire evidence adduced in this matter.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the both the parties and also perused the entire case record meticulously. My issue wise findings are as follows : Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 9 of 19
9. Issuewise findings: ISSUE NO. 4 and 6 9.1 These issues are taken up together as it requires common discussion on facts. The onus to prove these issues is upon the defendant. 9.2 Defendant has alleged that the letters dated 04.11.2016 and 20.11.2016 have been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff on the letter heads of the defendant company, after it being stolen from the office of the defendant (tenanted premises) at the time of taking forceful possession. 9.3 In such facts, the burden was on the defendant to prove the veracity of such allegation. No evidence has been led by him to discharge his onus. There is nothing on record to show if any complaint was ever made by the defendant regarding the incident or the property stolen thereto or the forcible dispossession of the defendant, as alleged. On the other hand plaintiff has duly proved on record the communications between the parties that had taken place in between 04.11.2016 to 24.11.2016 vide Exhibits PW 1/2 to Ex.Pw1/12. The letter heads of the company are nowhere denied by the defendant. And significantly in none of the communication exchanged between the parties, has the defendant denied the existence of the said letters despite it being specifically mentioned therein by the plaintiff, in his correspondence.
9.4 Nextly, on the mutual oral understanding: plaintiff has specifically denied any such oral understanding or for that matter agreement was ever executed between the parties. Thereafter, the burden was upon the defendant to lead evidence to prove the factum of the oral agreement. As Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 10 of 19 noted earlier, there is no evidence on record on behalf of the defendant. I must state that firstly, in W.S. also, except bald assertions to say that by mutual oral agreement the improvements made in the premises by the defendant (+5 lakhs rupees) were adjusted towards arrears of rent as full and final settlement, nothing is thereafter forthcoming as to the persons who all participated in such meeting; what all was agreed upon;what was the date and time ,in what manner, and where if at all, the agreement had taken place. The value of the fixtures or the fittings and in fact what all was there, the statement is completely silent in this regard.
Secondly, in terms of restrictions under Sec. 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, excluding the oral evidence to a written document, may also be taken note of. Section 91 contemplates that when something is to be done to be reduced into writing as per law and such terms are reduced into writing, no evidence shall be given in proof of such document except by the document itself. Similarly, Section 92 excludes any oral agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting varying, adding to, or subtracting from a contract required by law to be reduced in the form of a document. 9.5 Therefore in entirety of the facts for failure on the part of the defendant to discharge his onus and taking note of the evidence produced by the plaintiff, these issues accordingly stand decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NOs. 1, 2, 5 and 6 9.6 Except issue no. 5, the onus to prove issues, i.e. 1, 2 and 6 is upon Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 11 of 19 the plaintiffs. To discharge its onus plaintiffs have examined five witnesses. PW1 Sh Ravi Singhal the authorized representative of the plaintiff no.1 and PW2 the owner of the premises are the main witness who have deposed in line to the averments of the plaint and the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
9.7 In sum and substance the claim of the plaintiffs herein is the recovery of arrears of the rent of the premises leased out to the defendants ;the claim is not only premised on the lease agreement executed between the parties i.e plaintiff and defendant but also interalia on the conduct, acknowledgement and acceptance by the defendant which reflects the existence of the tenancy between the parties. Claim of the plaintiffs herein pertains to the period from March 2016 till October 2016 including the month of March and October during which the premises were occupied by the defendant and the rent was not paid in terms thereof. 9.8 Plaintiffs have duly placed on record and proved the lease agreement dated 03.11.2015 executed between defendant and plaintiff1, Ex. Pw1/1.the invoices raised by the plaintiff's towards the usage charges and electricity charges duly acknowledged for and on behalf of the defendant are also placed on record vide Ex. PW1/14(colly).
9.9 On the contrary, defendant has denied all the invoices and the ledger account statement of the plaintiffs. Defendant has also denied that lease agreement dated 03.11.2015 was executed between plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant but the fact remains that the defendant has not anywhere specifically denied the signatures and the terms and conditions contained Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 12 of 19 therein.
9.10 Also from the pleadings of the defendant it is evident that factum of existence of tenancy qua the premises in question stands admitted by the Defendant. It stands admitted that he was a tenant in the premises. The rent of the tenancy stands admitted in absence of any specific denial by the Defendant. It is admitted position that the defendant remained in possession of the premises till November 2016. The rent outstanding of the relevant period also stands not denied.
9.11 The objections raised by the defendant qua the claim of the plaintiff are mainly predicated on the grounds that by way of oral mutual settlement, the arrears of the rent were settled for consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs plus the fixtures/fittings in the premises to be retained by the plaintiff; the alleged letters and other documents are false, forged and fabricated, besides other legal objections in terms of unregistered and unstamped agreement, and capacity of plaintiff no.2 to sue being an unregistered firm. 9.12 As discussed earlier defendant has failed to show that the letters are false or fabricated and not written by the side of the defendants. The contentions to say that the author is not their employee and has not been summoned by the plaintiff to the witness box is without any legal basis. It is merely an afterthought on the part of the defendant to avoid their contractual liabilities towards the plaintiff. Burden was upon the defendant which he failed to discharge. In fact, the letters written by the defendants Ex. as PW 1/9, Ex. PW1/12 corroborates the case of the plaintiffs. Defendant vide the said letters duly acknowledges the fact of possession and outstanding Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 13 of 19 liabilities towards the plaintiffs.
9.13 The contention that the alleged due amount was settled by way of oral agreement between the parties and that the plaintiff had agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs paid through cheque and the fittings and fixtures and the furnitures in the property as full and final settlement towards the entire arrears of rent is also without any legal basis. As discussed in earlier issues, the defendant has miserably failed to demonstrate an oral agreement between the parties qua the said adjustment. The plea raised by the defendant is apparently hollow having no ring of truth in it.
9.14 The crossexamination of PW1 has proceeded mostly on irrelevant questions, not touching upon the main dispute between the parties. The crossexamination of PW2 is proceeded to test the capacity of plaintiff no. 1 to let out the premises and in capacity of plaintiff no. 2 to institute the present suit being an unregistered firm. It looses its significance in backdrop of the fact that relation between the parties as landlord and tenancy stands itself admitted by the defendant.
9.15 The plea of bar under Section 69(2) of the Registration Act was also taken by the defendant, but the facts remains the status of the defendant as a licensee in the premises is not disputed. Thus, in the facts of the case and taking note of findings in the earlier part, the objections regarding that the suit is not maintainable for and on behalf of the plaintiff no. 2 is unsustainable being an unregistered firm.
In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purushottam and Anr. V. Shivraj Fire Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 14 of 19 Arts Litho Works and Ors. ((2007) 15 SCC 58). In para 24, the Hon'ble Court has held that:
"with respect, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the principles enunciated in Haldiram Bhujiawala. Having regard to the purpose Section 69 (2) seeks to achieve and the interest sought to be protected, the bar must apply to a suit for enforcement of right arising from a contract entered into by the unregistered firm with a third party in the course of business dealings with such third party. If the right sought to be enforced does not arise from a contract to which the unregistered firm is a party, or is not entered into in connection with the business of unregistered firm with a third party, the bar of Section 69 (2) will not apply".
9.16. Herein, the claim of the plaintiff no. 2 does not emanates from the contractual rights and obligations qua the defendant based upon the contract executed between them.. The payments made to P2 as reflected from the ledger account and balance statement also stands proved by the testimony of PW1, PW2 and duly corroborated by testimony of PW3 and PW4 and moreover the factum of payments to the plaintiff no. 2 also stands admitted by the defendant. The witnesses were extensively crossexamined by the defendant but nothing incriminating or to cast doubt on the deposition of the said witnesses has come on record during crossexamination. 9.17 Besides that even otherwise the onus was upon the defendant to prove that the suit is not maintainable in terms of the preliminary objections raised in para 11 by him. At the cost of repetition, the right of the defendant to lead his evidence was closed after giving him number of opportunities.
Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 15 of 19 Thereby, in entirety of the facts, I have no hesitation to say that the suit cannot be dismissed simply on the ground raised by the defendant under para 11 of the WS.
9.18 Next, there is no gainsaying that a lease deed being unregistered can not create a lease on account of three pronged statutory restrictions ,in terms of interdiction of law contained in (i) first paragraph of Sec107,(ii) Sec17(1)of Registration Act, and (iii) Sec49 registration Act, but natural collory under sec107 of Transfer of Property Act would in such a scenario be that the tenancy shall be month to month basis.
9.19 At the same breath I must state that equally well settled is the proposition that an unregistered can be looked for collateral purposes. It can certainly be referred for ascertaining the nature of relationship , determining the rate of rent and other terms. Herein it is categorically mentioned in the Ex. PW1/1 lease agreement that the lease rent shall be Rs. 6,12,220/ in addition to taxes applicable and other charges as mentioned in the agreement. Ex. PW1/14 (colly) the invoices further strengthens the case of the plaintiff towards the rental amount claimed.
9.20 The objections regarding that the document/lease deed is unstamped and is inadmissible under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act is also without any legal force. It is settled law that even an insufficient Stamped document could be looked into by the court after impounding the same in accordance with law.
9.21 The Section 35 and particularly the proviso (a) of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act was amended in the year 2006 and the amended proviso Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 16 of 19 clarifies that the unstamped or insufficient stamped document can be taken into evidence, subject to complaint of Section 29,33, 38 read with Section 44 of the Indian Stamp Act.
9.22 Further, the challenge to the admissibility of an insufficient stamped instrument shall stands foreclosed as soon as the instrument is admitted in evidence by making good the payment of stamp duty and penalty by invoking proviso (a) of Section 35 read with Section 38 of Indian Stamp Duty Act. The court can certainly look into the contents of the said document, for the said documents could not be made invalid merely because the same was not property stamped.
9.23 Further, the plaintiff has also placed on record the four cheques issued by the defendants to discharge the legal outstanding liabilities. The said cheques admittedly were dishonoured on their presentation with the bankers. The defence that the cheques were issued as security cheques given to the plaintiff at earlier point of time also remains unsubstantiated in absence of any evidence.
9.24 At this stage, a reference may be made to the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act. Under Section 118 r/w Section 139 NI Act presumption arises in favour of a cheque or a negotiable instrument. Though, it is rebuttable presumption, but the fact remains that there is no evidence to rebut the statutory presumption.
9.25 Now, coming to the interest part plaintiff has claimed an interest @15% pendente lite and future from the date of filing of the suit. Perusal of the invoices clause 2) of Note underneath exhibited PW1/14 (colly) reflects Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 17 of 19 that in case of default or delay in the payment of the bill amount before 10 th of the month shall attract interest rate @15% as specifically mentioned therein. Further, clause q) of the lease agreement also specifically mentions that the delayed payments shall be subject to an interest @15% p.a. In these circumstances, when there is a contractual agreement about the rate of interest and the outstanding payment, and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the premises were leased out for commercial establishment, I deem it fit and appropriate that the outstanding amount shall carry amount @15% p.a. 9.26 Issue no. 7 requires no findings since defendant has failed to prove their claim in the form of set of/counter claim.
Thus summing up:
(i) The jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands established.
(ii) The rate of rent stands established.
(iii) The possession of the premises by the defendant till November
2016 stands established.
(iv) The arrears of rent for the March to October stands established.
(v) Any oral settlement agreement qua the outstanding rent stands not
proved by the defendant.
(vi) The contention that letters dated 04.11.2016 and 20.11.2016 are
forged and fabricated stands not proved.
(vii) The interest @ 15% on delayed payment stands proved.
Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 18 of 19 Analysing and appreciating the facts of the case as discussed above, I foresee no reason why the defendant shall not be held liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit.
10. Relief:
In light of my findings on the above noted issues, the plaintiffs have been successful in establishing their claim against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 47,17,115/ in terms of prayer clause 1) and 2) of the suit (i.e. towards P1 Rs. 37,21,599/ and P2 Rs. 9,95.516/) along with interest @15% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
Cost be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (Anil Antil)
Today on 07.08.2018 ADJ05, South East, District(SE)
Saket Court, New Delhi
Civil Suit No.237/17 Biotech International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. page no. 19 of 19