Bangalore District Court
Sri.Ramesh Chandra vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 9 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
Dated: This the 9th Day of March 2015.
Present: Sri. M.S.Patil, B.Sc., LL.B.
XXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 2 9 5 7 / 2011
Plaintiff: Sri.Ramesh Chandra,
Aged about 50 years,
s/o.late Sri.Ramkumar,
residing at # 128, "Rajdeep",
Sharada Colony, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru-560079.
Represented by his Power of Attorney
M/s.Rasasri Developers Private Limited,
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its office at
No.25, First Floor "Utsav",
Above City Super Market,
ITI Layout, new B.E.L.Road,
Bengaluru-54.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Sri.Anjaneyalu Prathipati,
s/o.Subbaiah, aged about 61 years,
No.18, 3rd Floor, Rasasri Chambers,
Jaladarshini Layout, Bengaluru-560054.
by Sri.R.Nataraj, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendants: 1. HDFC Bank Ltd.,
HDFC Bank House, Senapathi Bapat
Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13,
Rep. by its Regional Business
Manager, Major.
2 O.S.No.2957/2011
2. HDFC Bank Ltd.,
No.8/24, Richmond Road,
Corporation Division No.61,
Bengaluru-25, by its Manager, Major.
D1 & 2 -by Sri.Suraj R Manjeshwar, Advocate.
Date of institution of suit 20-4-2011
Nature of the suit Ejectment
Counter claim Payment of Rs.3,54,600/-
with interest
Date of commencement of 27-3-2012
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 9-3-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
19 10 03
JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the plaintiff is for directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiff, for directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,53,868/- towards arrears of rent, electricity charges, water charges and security charges, and the cost of repairs of suit property, with interest at 12% per annum, from the date of suit, till realization and for directing the defendant to pay damages at Rs.3,000/- per day, from the date of suit, till delivering vacant possession of suit property, together with costs and such other reliefs, which the Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case.
3 O.S.No.2957/20112. The brief facts of the plaint averments are that, the plaintiff is the owner of suit premises measuring 1900 square feet in the ground floor of property bearing No.4, B.E.L.Road, Chikamaranahalli, Bengaluru-94 and that, the plaintiff has leased out the suit property for a period of nine years on monthly rent of Rs.55,100/-, subject to 15% escalation once in three years on the last paid rent, under lease agreement dated 2-9-2005 and that, the plaintiff had provided 45 KVA of power and a strong room for safe locker in the suit premises and constructed requisite number of toilets and pantry and flooring and parking space for one car and ten 2 wheelers, to the defendant, who is carrying on banking business and that, the defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.3,30,600/- in favour of the plaintiff as security deposit, under another agreement dated 2-9-2005 and that, the defendant was paying electricity charges, water charges and security charges during the lease period and that, the defendant issued a notice on 20-5-2009 terminating the lease, by issuing three months notice to the plaintiff and demanded refund of security deposit of Rs.3,30,600/- and offered to handover vacant possession of suit premises on or before 20-8-2009 and that, the defendant has failed to clear the arrears of rent and maintenance charges and did not handover the vacant possession of suit premises to the plaintiff, as per his letter dated 4 O.S.No.2957/2011 20-5-2009 and consequently, the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to pay dues up to 25-11-2009 and the said letter was followed by another letter dated 12-4-2010 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, calling upon him (the defendant), to pay rent from December 2009 till April 2010, as he did not handover vacant delivery of possession of suit premises, as agreed by the defendant and the defendant has also informed to pay the cost of repair charges in respect of damages caused to the building and estimate was attached thereto and further, the defendant was called upon to confirm whether he would repair himself or permits the plaintiff to repair the same and to recover the estimated amount of Rs.2,51,088/- estimation of repairs and damages caused to the building and in response to the said letter, the defendant confirmed that, he has vacated the suit premises and shifted to new location and started blaming the plaintiff for not refunding the security deposit and contended that, he has repaired the damages caused to the shutters, by paying Rs.14,000/- and has paid rent till December 2009 and has further informed the plaintiff that, he has repaired false ceiling, electrical wiring and painting, by spending an amount of Rs.10,000/- and thus, he has called upon the plaintiff to repay Rs.3,54,600/- and consequently, the plaintiff has issued a notice dated 1-7-2010 calling upon the defendant to pay the maintenance charges, water charges, security 5 O.S.No.2957/2011 charges and other civil works undertaken by the plaintiff, amounting to a total sum of Rs.7,74,000/- and that, a legal notice is also sent to the defendant and that, on 27-12-2010 the plaintiff has issued a legal notice through his counsel, to the defendant, calling upon the defendant to pay rent due amount, electricity charges, water charges and security charges and thus, the defendant is liable to pay total sum of Rs.11,33,380/-, as outstanding dues in respect of rent due, electricity charges, security charges, maintenance charges and water bill, etc., up to February 2011 and that, the defendant has neither paid the due amount, nor handed over delivery of vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiff, even after terminating the tenancy and hence, this suit for directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiff and for directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,53,868/- towards arrears of rent, electricity charges, water charges and security charges, and the cost of repairs of suit property, with interest at 12% per annum, from the date of suit, till realization and for directing the defendant to pay damages at Rs.3,000/- per day, from the date of suit, till delivering vacant possession of suit property.
6 O.S.No.2957/20113. This suit is opposed by the defendant, by filing his written statement, wherein he contends that, it is true that, the defendant is a Banking Company, carrying on banking business in the suit premises of plaintiff and that, the defendant-Bank being tenant under the plaintiff from 5-9-2005, in respect of suit property, has paid a sum of Rs.3,30,600/- as security deposit under Agreement dated 2-9-2005 and Deposit Agreement dated 2-9-2005, both executed between the plaintiff and the defendant-Bank and that, the defendant-Bank issued a notice of termination of tenancy, vide letter dated 20-5-2009, informing the plaintiff of it's intention to vacate from the suit premises on or before 20-8-2009 and called upon the plaintiff to refund security deposit amount of Rs.3,30,600/- to the defendant and to take over vacant possession of suit premises and that, the defendant has vacated the premises on 20-8-2009, by shifting to a new location, but the plaintiff did not come forward to refund the security deposit and therefore, the defendant was forced to hold over possession of the premises and continued to pay rent amount in respect of suit premises, to the plaintiff, up to December 2009, even though the defendant was not under the obligation as per law, to pay the same and that, the defendant repaired the shutters of suit premises in September 2009, by incurring expenses of Rs.14,000/-, despite the lease agreement that 7 O.S.No.2957/2011 natural wear and tear was permitted and that, the defendant has undertaken to repair the other damages caused to the suit premises, by spending Rs.10,000/-, even though the defendant was not under obligation to repair the damaged portion of the suit premises under lease agreement and deposit agreement, both dated 2-9-2005 and that, the defendant has called upon the plaintiff to pay the security deposit amount and to take again delivery of possession, by writing several letters to the plaintiff and that, instead of preparing himself to refund the deposit amount, the plaintiff has come up with new demands of removal of strong room at the cost of the defendant, despite the repairs of shutters and other repairs, undertaken by the defendant-Bank, by spending Rs.24,000/- and thus, the plaintiff has postponed repaying or refunding the security deposit amount to the defendant, including the cost of repairs undertaken by the defendant, at the request of the plaintiff and that, as per the Lease Agreement and Deposit Agreement, the plaintiff was to take delivery of vacant possession of suit premises, simultaneous with refund of security deposit and that, the plaintiff, instead of preparing himself to refund or repay the security deposit, has put-forth demands after demands for repairs of suit premises, on the ground that, the defendant has caused damages to the suit premises, despite notice given to the plaintiff, to repay/refund the security deposit 8 O.S.No.2957/2011 and to take vacant delivery of suit property. On all these grounds, it is prayed for dismissal of this suit.
4. The defendant has filed a counter claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,54,600/-, which includes security deposit of Rs.3,30,600/- and repairing at the rate of 24,000/- undertaken by the defendant, at his own cost, on the request by the plaintiff and has prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of intimation by the defendant to the plaintiff, on it's intention to vacate from the suit property, till the date of realization, together with costs of this suit.
5. On the basis of these rival contentions taken by the parties, following Issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that despite service of notice of termination, the defendants have not handed over vacant possession?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay maintenance charges, water charges and other civil works and arrears of rent amounting to Rs.10,53,868/-?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.3,000/- per day, from the date of suit, till the defendant hands over vacant possession?
4. Whether the defendants prove that it has vacated the suit schedule premises before 20-8-2009?9 O.S.No.2957/2011
5. Whether the defendants are entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on the security deposit amount of Rs.3,30,600/- and repair charges of Rs.24,000/-?
6. What Decree or Order?
Addl.Issue:
Whether the plaintiff proves that there is no cause of action for the counter claim?
6. The plaintiff, to prove his case, has examined his Power of Attorney Holder, as P.W.1 and relied upon 12 documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P12 and closed his side.
The defendant examined it's Branch Manager as D.W.1 and relied upon three documents, marked as Exs.D1 to D3 and closed it's side.
7. Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties.
8. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - in the Negative;
Issue No.2 - in the Negative;
Issue No.3 - in the Negative;
Issue No.4 - in the Negative;
Issue No.5 - partly in the Affirmative; and partly in the Negative;
Issue No.6 - as per Final Order below; Addl. Issue - in the Negative; for the following:10 O.S.No.2957/2011
Reasons
9. Admitted facts are that, the defendant was tenant of the plaintiff in the suit property, under unregistered Lease Agreement dated 2-9-2005 and Deposit Agreement dated 2-9-2005, commencing from 2-9-2005 on monthly rent of Rs.55,100/- subject to T.D.S. and security deposit of Rs.3,30,600/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
10. Issue Nos. 1 and 4 : For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and in view of the fact that, these Issues are inter-linked and inter-connected with each other, these Issues are taken-up together for common consideration.
11. The plaintiff contends that, despite service of notice of termination, the defendant has not handed over vacant possession of suit property.
12. To substantiate this contention, the plaintiff examined his G.P.A. holder as P.W.1, who has reiterated these facts in his evidence before the Court.
13. The G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff, who is examined as P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P2- Notice of Termination, dated 20-5-2009, issued by the Manager of the defendant-Bank, to the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff, stating that, vacant 11 O.S.No.2957/2011 possession of suit property will be delivered to the plaintiff, on repayment of security deposit of Rs.3,30,600/- to the defendant, on or before 20-8-209, Ex.P3- letter dated 18-11-2009 issued by the Managing Director of Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff, to the defendant-Bank, stating that, keys of suit premises was not handed over to the plaintiff and cheque towards maintenance charges not paid to the plaintiff, Ex.P4-letter dated 12-4-2010 of the Managing Director of the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff to the defendant- Bank, calling upon the defendant-Bank to pay rent, maintenance charges, including estimated repairs of damages caused to the suit property by defendant, at Rs.2,51,088/- as per the Estimation of Damages given by Engineer of plaintiff, on or before 25-4-2010, Ex.P5-letter dated 6-5-2010 issued by the defendant Bank to the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff, stating that, the plaintiff has not come forward to take vacant possession of suit premises, simultaneous with handing over of security deposit and further informing the plaintiff's Power of Attorney Holder that, fresh demands are made by the plaintiff and that, repairs to damaged parts/ portions of suit premises is undertaken by the defendant by spending Rs.10,000/- and Rs.14,000/- is spent by the defendant towards repairs of shutters, although the repairs of damaged parts of suit premises is with plaintiff, Ex.9-letter dated 12 O.S.No.2957/2011 13-12-2010 by the Advocate for the defendant, calling upon the plaintiff to refund security deposit of Rs.3,30,600/- together with costs of repair charges of Rs.24,000/- undertaken by the defendant within 15 days of receipt of notice and Ex.P10 by plaintiff's counsel to the defendant to pay Rs.9,08,240/- to the plaintiff, towards rent, electricity charges, water charges and security charges.
14. On the other hand, the defendant contends that, the defendant has issued notice of termination to the plaintiff on 20-5-2009, calling upon the plaintiff to take vacant possession of suit property, simultaneously with refund of security deposit, to the defendant and the plaintiff, instead of complying with terms of notice of termination issued to plaintiff on 20-5-2009, the plaintiff has started demanding damages and estimated repair charges from the defendant and failed to refund/ repair the security deposits, although notice, calling upon the plaintiff to take vacant possession of suit premises with simultaneous refund of security deposits is issued to plaintiff.
15. The Manager of the defendant-Bank, who is examined as D.W.1, reiterates the same facts in his written statement and relies upon Ex.D2-letter dated 20-5-2009 issued by the defendant-Bank to Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff, in the form of notice of termination of lease, Ex.D3-letter dated 13 O.S.No.2957/2011 1-7-2010, issued by the legal advisor of the plaintiff to the Regional Manager of defendant-Bank, calling upon the defendant Bank to pay Rs.2,51,088/- towards repairs of damages, Rs.7,74,004/- towards rent due, electricity charges, maintenance charges, security charges, etc.
16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that, the defendant did not pay Rs.7,74,004/-, as stated in Ex.D3, to the plaintiff or Rs.9,08,240/- to the plaintiff, as per legal notice of plaintiff's legal advisor, as per Ex.P10, towards rent due, electricity charges, maintenance charges and security charges (calculated up to November 2010), to the plaintiff, despite service of notices, marked at Ex.P10 and Ex.D3, served upon the defendant.
17. On the other hand, the Manager of the defendant-Bank, who is examined as D.W.2, has admitted in 2nd para of page 12 of his cross- examination that, the key of suit property is still with the defendant. The deposition of D.W.1 goes to show that, the defendant has not delivered vacant possession of suit premises to the plaintiff or to his power of attorney holder.
18. Learned counsel for the defendant has brought to my attention, the paras 6, 8, 8(1) and 9 of Deposit of Agreement and submits that, the plaintiff has failed to refund the security deposit to 14 O.S.No.2957/2011 the defendant, despite the plaintiff is called upon to repay security deposit to the defendant, vide letter of termination of lease dated 20-5-2009 (Ex.P2).
On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits and argues that, the defendant ought to have repaired the damaged portion of suit premises for the purpose of refund of security deposit.
19. On going through Exs.P3, P4 and P6 -
letters dated 18-11-2009, 12-4-2010 and 1-7-2010, respectively, the Managing Director of Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff and legal advisor of the plaintiff, called upon the defendant to pay maintenance charges (as per Ex.P3) estimated charges of Rs.2,51,088/- (as per Ex.P4), Rs.2,51,088/- towards repair charges and Rs.5,22,916/- towards rent due, electricity charges, maintenance charges and security charges.
20. On going through Ex.P11-copy of Indenture of Lease, dated 2-9-2005 and Ex.P12- Deposit Agreement, dated 2-9-2005, there is no covenant/term/condition in Exs.P11 and P12 that, the defendant has to pay damages or repair charges on termination of lease, for any reason. In the instant case, lease is terminated on 20-8-2009, by notice of termination, given by the defendant, to the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff on 15 O.S.No.2957/2011 20-5-2009 and the plaintiff has not produced any evidence, to show that, he was ready and willing to repay the security deposit to the defendant, simultaneous with getting back vacant delivery of possession of suit premises, from the defendant.
21. The plaintiff has failed to show that, he was ready and willing to repay security deposit to the defendant and legal advisor of the defendant has stated in Ex.P6 that, " ..Your Bank has not taken any steps regarding above letter and hence, the refund of security deposit question does not arise."
22. The defendant, vide his letter dated 6-5-2010 (Ex.P5) has stated in last para, as under:
"Considering the above facts, you are hereby called upon to accept the vacant possession of the premises and refund the security deposit immediately on or before May 10th 2010. In the event of your failure to refund the security deposit by May 10th 2010, then in addition to the security deposit amount of Rs.3,30,600/-, you are hereby demanded to refund the costs of repairs incurred by the Bank, i.e., Rs.24000/-. Effectively, the total sum refundable by you is Rs.354600/- (security deposit + costs of repairs effected) together with interest @ 18% p.a. from August 20, 2009, till date of effecting the payment of the Bank."16 O.S.No.2957/2011
23. On the basis of these exchange of letters between the plaintiff or the plaintiff's Power of Attorney Holder and the defendant and their legal consultants, it goes to show that, the plaintiff has demanded to repair the damaged portions of suit premises and to receive security deposit, simultaneous with repair of damaged portions of suit property or to pay estimated repairing charges and other charges, such as, electricity charges, water charges, security charges and maintenance charges, etc., to the plaintiff, simultaneous with refund of security charges by the plaintiff to the defendant and handing over of vacant delivery of suit premises by the defendant to the plaintiff. But, neither in Ex.P11- Indenture of Lease dated 2-9-2005, nor in Ex.P12-Deposit Agreement dated 2-9-2005, there is no recital or covenant or condition to the effect that, the defendant has to pay damages or other charges to the plaintiff on termination of lease, for any reason, before giving vacant delivery of possession of suit property to the plaintiff and that, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence, to show that, he was ready to refund security deposit to the defendant, simultaneous with taking of vacant delivery of possession of suit property, from the defendant, by him, as required under term/condition No.6 read with 8 and 8(1) of the Deposit Agreement dated 2-9-2005 (Ex.P12).
17 O.S.No.2957/201124. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold Issue No.1 in the Negative and Issue No.4 in the Negative.
25. Issue Nos.2 and 3 : For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and in view of the fact that, these Issues are inter-linked and inter-connected with each other, these Issues are taken-up together for common consideration.
26. The plaintiff contends that, the defendant is liable to pay maintenance charges, water charges and other civil works and arrears of rent amounting to Rs.10,53,868/- and that, the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.3,000/- per day from the date of suit till the defendant hands over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
27. The plaintiff, who is examined as P.W.1, reiterates the same facts stated by him in his evidence. In support of his contention, P.W.1 relies upon clause (i) and (j) of para No.2 of Ex.P11.
28. In this context, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following citations:
Food Corporation of India and others vs. M/s.Babulal Agrawal, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2926, wherein Head Note 'D' reads thus:18 O.S.No.2957/2011
"(D) Contract Act (9 of 1872), S.73-Damages for breach of contract-Quantum of damages-
Food Corporation agreeing to hire plinth for 3 yrs. Terminating lease before 3 yrs. -Suit for damages at rate equal to rent payable-Rate of damages cannot be reduced merely because Corporation had decided that premises hired for three years may be continued for the same period but negotiations may be held for reducing the liability."
29. On the other hand, the defendant contends that, the defendant is not liable to pay maintenance charges, water charges and charges incurred in carrying on other civil works and arrears of rent, amounting to total of Rs.10,53,868/- and damages of Rs.3,000/- per day, from the date of suit, till the defendant hands over vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiff. In support of it's contention, the Branch Manager of the defendant is examined as D.W.1, who has reiterated the same facts in his evidence given before the Court.
30. In support of his contention, D.W.1 has relied upon Exs.P11 and P12, which are Indenture of Lease and Deposit Agreement, both dated 2-9-2005 respectively.
31. There is no recital that, the defendant is liable to pay charges, such as electricity charges, water charges, security charges, and maintenance charges etc. to the plaintiff, after termination of lease. Therefore, the contention that, the defendant 19 O.S.No.2957/2011 is liable to pay maintenance chargers, water charges and amount incurred for execution of other civil works, including arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.10,53,868/- and further, in view of the fact that, the defendant has not chosen to repay the security deposit, simultaneous with receiving the vacant delivery of possession of possession of suit property from the defendant, I hold that, the defendant is not liable to pay damages of Rs.3,000/- per day, to the plaintiff, from the date of suit, till vacant possession of suit property is handed over to the plaintiff.
32. The condition No.2(i) and 2(j) of Ex.P11- Indenture of Lease, shows that, lessee shall pay all the charges, such as, electricity charges, water charges, security charges and maintenance charges, during the continuation of term of lease. Therefore, in view of the absence of any recital in Exs.P11 and P12 - Agreements, we find that, there is no recital/ condition or term in these 2 agreements, to show that, the defendant is liable to pay these charges, including damages to the plaintiff, after termination of lease. Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that, the plaintiff has failed to prove these Issues. Hence, these Issues No.2 and 3 are held in the Negative.
20 O.S.No.2957/201133. Issue No. 5 : The defendant contends that, the plaintiff has not offered to repay/refund security advance of Rs.3,30,600/- to the defendant, simultaneous with receiving vacant delivery of possession of the suit property from defendant, and hence, the plaintiff is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum, on the security deposit and further, the defendant contends that, the defendant, though, as per agreements-Exs.P11 and P12, both dated 2-9-2005, not liable to repay the damages caused by him to the suit property, after termination of lease. However, the defendant has undertaken to repair the damages to the suit property, including damagers caused to shutters, by spending to the tune of Rs.24,000/- and this repair is undertaken by spending Rs.24,000/- on the ground that, the amount of Rs.3,30,600/- towards security deposit, was required to be paid by the plaintiff, to the defendant. In order to substantiate this contention, the defendant has relied upon Exs.P11 and P12 - Agreements, such as Indenture of Lease Agreement, dated 2-9-2005 and Deposit Agreement, dated 2-9- 2005, wherein there is a condition at Clause- 8 (ii), which reads as under:
" ii) In addition, the Lessor shall be liable to pay to the Lessee interest @ 24% p.a. compounded quarterly, on the said deposit from the date of termination or expiry of the said Lease Agreement or any renewal thereof till the date of refund of the said deposit by the Lessor to the Lessee; and "21 O.S.No.2957/2011
34. The plaintiff has not produced any rebuttal evidence to rebut the contention of the defendant and to disprove Clause 8(ii) of Ex.P12- Deposit Agreement, to show that, the plaintiff is not liable to pay interest at 24% compounded quarterly, on the security deposit amount. In view of this fact, the plaintiff is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on the deposit amount of Rs.3,30,600/-. However, it is made clear that, the defendant is not entitled to interest on the amount at Rs.24,000/- spent by the defendant, towards repair of shutters and other damages caused to the suit property, after termination of lease period. According, I hold this Issue No.5 partly in the Affirmative and partly in the Negative.
35. Additional Issue : The plaintiff contends that, there is no cause of action for the counter claim of the defendant, but, on going through the entire materials available on record, it goes to show that, the plaintiff has not offered to refund security deposit amount, simultaneous with, taking or receiving the vacant delivery of possession of suit property from the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant, by issuing notice of termination dated 20-5-2009, has called upon the plaintiff to repay security deposit, simultaneous with taking of possession of suit premises, from the defendant- Bank. Therefore, I hold that, the plaintiff has failed to prove that, there is no cause of action for the 22 O.S.No.2957/2011 counter claim. Hence, this Additional Issue is held in the Negative.
36. Issue No. 6 : In view of the foregoing reasons and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
The Counter claim made by the
defendant, is hereby allowed.
The plaintiff shall refund
Rs.3,30,600/-, together with interest, at the rate of 18% per annum, on the security deposit amount, from the date of suit, till it's complete realization.
The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw up Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 9th day of March 2015.) (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.23 O.S.No.2957/2011
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Anjaneyalu Prathipati List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 Arnab Chaudhury List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1- original General Power of Attorney Ex.P2 - Notice of termination dated 20-5-2009 Ex.P3 - Reply dated 18-11-2009 Ex.P4 - Letter dated 12-4-2010 Ex.P5 - Letter dated 6-5-2010 Ex.P6 - Reply dated 1-7-2010 Exs.P7 & P8 - two postal acknowledgments Ex.P9 - Notice issued by the defendants Ex.P10 - reply given by the plaintiff Ex.P11 - Xerox copy of Indenture of lease Ex.P12 - Deposit Agreement List of documents marked for defendants:
Ex.D1 - letter dated 5-4-2008 Ex.D2 - letter dated 20-5-2009 Ex.D3 - legal notice dated 1-7-2010 (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.24 O.S.No.2957/2011
....-2015 Judgment passed and pronounced in Open Court. (vide separate). Operative portion thereof reads as under:
XXXXXXXXXXX XXII A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru.