Delhi District Court
Sh. Madan Lal Maggon vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 June, 2014
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-5, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique No. 02401C5120822004
Suit No. 107/13
Sh. Madan Lal Maggon,
M-247, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
.....Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION:16/07/2003
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:25/03/2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:04/06/2014
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, recovery for sum of Rs. 7,24,495/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Five Only) and for injunction. Plaintiff was Suit No. 107/13 Page 1/28 -2- awarded the contract for construction of 61 MIG and 104 LIG Flats inclusive of the internal development at Sector-13, Pocket-I, Phase- I, Dwarka. Parties executed supplementary agreement no. 2/EE/WD.15/DDA/94-95 dated 01.05.98 for watch and ward and for finishing work. Dispute arose between the parties. Defendant had withheld some amount from the final bill and it was not released to the plaintiff on the ground that he failed to remove the defects in the flats. The payment of watch and ward for the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000 which was made to the plaintiff, was recovered by encashing the security deposit. Certain other payments were withheld including the claim under clause 10CC. The pleadings of the parties do not give clear picture of the dispute regarding the claim of the plaintiff under different heads and the position is clarified by reading the documents alongwith the pleadings. Therefore I deem it appropriate to discuss the pleadings and the documents while deciding the issues instead of reproducing the same before mentioning the issues framed in this suit. Suit No. 107/13 Page 2/28 -3-
2. Issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.02.05 and the same are :
(i) Whether the present suit is barred under Section 41 (h) of The Specific Relief Act?OPD.
(ii) Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected in view of Section 53 B of Delhi Development Act?OPD.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
3. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Defendant examined its Executive Engineer Sh. Mahesh Kumar Khatwani as DW1. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has also filed written arguments and I have perused the same. The issues are decided as hereunder :
4. ISSUE No. (i) : Whether the present suit is barred under Section 41 (h) of The Specific Relief Act?OPD.
Plaintiff has prayed that a decree of permanent injunction be Suit No. 107/13 Page 3/28 -4- passed against defendant restraining it from adjusting the amounts due to the plaintiff towards the watch and ward charges already paid to the plaintiff and to restrain the defendant from getting the work done from a third agency at the risk and cost of the plaintiff. Section 41 (h) of The Specific Relief Act prohibits grant of the relief of injunction when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust. In case the plaintiff succeeds in proving that he had removed all defects and that the amount of watch and ward charges cannot be recovered, defendant can be restrained from adjusting the other amount towards recovery of the watch and ward charges. As far as the second part of the prayer is concerned, the same is not to be granted because plaintiff could claim compensation in case the defendant wrongly withdrew the work and assigned it to a third party. The provisions under Sections 20 and 21 of The Specific Relief Act show that instead of seeking injunction against the defendant to restrain it from withdrawing the work, plaintiff should have prayed for compensation. The suit does Suit No. 107/13 Page 4/28 -5- not become bad because injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff in respect of one part of the prayer for injunction. Therefore the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and it is held that the suit is not barred by Section 41 (h) of The Specific Relief Act.
5. ISSUE No. (ii) : Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected in view of Section 53 B of Delhi Development Act?OPD. It is an admitted fact that the notice under Section 53 B of DD Act was not given by the plaintiff to the defendant before filing of the suit. In the written arguments filed by the plaintiff, it is stated that plaintiff had moved an application for exemption from serving the notice and notice of the application as well as the notice of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was issued by the Hon'ble High Court to the defendant. The suit was originally filed in the Hon'ble High Court and due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction it was transferred to the District Courts vide order dt. 20.01.04. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Parinda Punchi (Smt.) & Anr. Vs. MCD & Ors. Suit No. 107/13 Page 5/28 -6- reported as 2005 IV AD (Delhi) 639 that exemption cannot be granted in respect of notice under Section 53 B DDA Act. However Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has rightly argued that Section 53B does not apply where the dispute arises out of a contract and in this regard reliance is placed on the judgment by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Lucky Star Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman AIR 2004 Delhi 428. The judgment by the Hon'ble High Court clearly holds that the notice under Section 53 B DD Act is not required to be served where the dispute arises between the parties out of a contract and not on account of any action taken by DDA under the provisions of DD Act. Therefore the issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
6. ISSUE No. (iii) : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for? OPP.
(6.1) Plaintiff has prayed for declaration, recovery of Rs. 7,24,495/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 18%p.a. and he has also Suit No. 107/13 Page 6/28 -7- prayed for injunction. The relief of injunction has already been mentioned above. By way of a decree for declaration, plaintiff wants a declaration that the defendant does not have the right to recover the amount paid towards watch and ward charges. This aspect will have to be considered while considering the prayer made by the plaintiff for recovery of money. Grant of relief of injunction will also depend upon the outcome of the prayer for recovery of money. Therefore I will firstly take up the prayer for recovery of money.
(6.2) Plaintiff has claimed different amount under different heads. The break up of the amounts is mentioned in paragraph 12 of the plaint. The first amount claimed under paragraph 12 (a) is towards the watch and ward charges. Plaintiff has not specified the period for which the amount has been claimed. Plaintiff has only mentioned that watch and ward charges @ Rs. 6600/- p.m. is claimed with interest @ 18% and the total amount is mentioned as Rs. 3,86,232/-. In the written statement while replying to paragraph Suit No. 107/13 Page 7/28 -8- 12 (a) the amount has been mentioned as Rs. 3,32,376/-. In the replication the plaintiff has mentioned the amount as Rs. 3,32,376/- as stated by the defendant in the written statement instead of mentioning it as Rs. 3,86,232/- as stated by him in the plaint. This is one example which shows that pleadings of the parties do not give clear picture about the claim and the defence. However from the averments made in the plaint and the documents, the period for which the claim has been made can be ascertained. The supplementary agreement was executed on 01.05.98 and it expired on 30.04.99. Plaintiff has stated in paragraph 8 (b) of the plaint that the supplementary agreement was extended for a further period of one year and it came to an end on 30.04.2000. In paragraph 13 of the plaint it is stated that defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,51,800/- towards the watch and ward charges. The period from 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000 is of 23 months and the total amount of watch and ward charges for this period @ Rs. 6600/- p.m. is Rs. 1,51,800/-. Plaintiff has claimed that he is entitled for watch and ward charges for the period 01.05.98 to 30.06.2003. The payment for the period Suit No. 107/13 Page 8/28 -9- 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000 had already been released. Therefore the claim under paragraph 12 (a) is towards the watch and ward charges with interest for the period 01.05.2000 to 30.06.2003. (6.3) According to the plaintiff, he continued to provide the watch and ward services to the defendant even after 30.04.2000 as allotment of the flats was pending. Under the agreement it was the duty of the defendant to ensure the safety of the unalloted flats and therefore he continued to provide the watch and ward services. He also wrote several letters to the defendant for extension of the supplementary agreement for watch and ward services. Defendant has claimed that the circulars 509, 510 and 520 were internal communications which did not create any right in favour of the contractors. It is claimed that execution of the supplementary agreement for watch and ward charges was bad. It is also claimed that under circular 520, watch and ward services had to be paid subject to removal of the defects by the contractor. The defendant did not remove the defects and therefore he is not entitled to Suit No. 107/13 Page 9/28 -10- payment of watch and ward charges. The questions whether the defendant can claim that the supplementary agreement was not validly executed and whether payment of watch and ward charges can be denied due to non removal of the defects will also arise while considering claim 12 (c). Consideration of these questions while deciding claim 12 (a) is not required as admittedly there is no extension of the contract by the defendant for the relevant period of the claim. The supplementary agreement clearly provides that extension of the agreement could be done by mutual consent of the parties. Defendant did not extend the period of the supplementary agreement. After expiry of the period of the supplementary agreement, defendant could have stopped providing the services and could have claimed exemption from the consequences thereof on the ground that there was delay on part of the defendant in allotment of the flats. Defendant cannot claim the amount in absence of extension of the contract which was to be done by mutual consent. It is also to be noted that plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that watch and ward services were actually Suit No. 107/13 Page 10/28 -11- provided during the relevant period. Absence of any complaint of theft or pilferage does not lead to the inference that plaintiff was providing the watch and ward services even after expiry of the period of the supplementary agreement. In paragraph 4 of the letter dt. 20.08.2002 written by the defendant to the plaintiff which is Ex. DW1/11, defendant alleged that the plaintiff had not deployed any staff for watch and ward. It was the duty of the plaintiff to lead evidence and to show that the watch and ward staff was deployed at the site during the relevant period. The period of the contract expired and plaintiff has failed to prove that he deployed watch and ward staff during the relevant period. Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to any amount under Claim 12 (a).
7. (7.1) Under Claim 12 (b) plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 30,500/- for 25 LIG Flats @ Rs. 1,220/- per flat and a sum of Rs. 80,750/- towards 50 MIG Flats @ Rs. 1,615/- per flat. An amount of Rs. 2700/- claimed as interest @ 18%p.a. on the amount of Rs. 30,500/-. The total amount claimed under claim 12 (b) is Rs. Suit No. 107/13 Page 11/28 -12- 1,13,950/-. In reply it is simply stated in paragraph 12 (b) of the WS that the claim is denied. Plaintiff has not explained which of the 25 LIG flats and 50 MIG flats are referred to under claim 12 (b) and the defendant also did not bother to examine the same. In the replication it is stated in paragraph 12 (b) that the plaintiff completed the work of balance 22 flats in every respect and the defendant is deliberately not taking possession of these flats. It is further stated that plaintiff cannot be denied the due payment of Rs. 29,255/- with interest @ 18% p.a. for the period of 06 months. The discrepancy in the averments made in the plaint and the replication is apparent. To ascertain what plaintiff has claimed under the claim 12 (b) we have to again refer to the documents. Ex. P24 is letter dt. 27.06.03 written by the defendant to the plaintiff. In this letter it is stated that "It is not denied that payment of 25 flats handed over to the Kashmiri Migrants is due to you but since you have failed to rectify the defects and make the flats ready for handing over to the police department.....". This letter shows that under claim 12 (b) the amount being claimed for 25 LIG flats is towards the 25 LIG Suit No. 107/13 Page 12/28 -13- flats referred to in Ex. P24. Now we have to ascertain the 50 MIG flats in respect of which also claim has been made under claim 12
(b). Ex. P8 is letter dt. 04.04.03 from the defendant to the plaintiff. By this letter defendant informed the plaintiff that Delhi Police had purchased 102 flats in Dwarka, Sector-13, Pocket I, Phase-I and II. List of the flats was also supplied to the plaintiff with Ex. P8. The list shows that 50 flats of type B in pocket I, Phase-I, Sector-13 and 52 flats of type B in pocket I, Phase-II had been purchased by Delhi Police. The communication between the parties shows that the dispute under claim 12 (b) is regarding 50 flats in pocket I, Phase-I. Plaintiff claims that he completed the flats and the defendant claims that the flats were not completed. It is an admitted fact by the defendant that plaintiff had to be paid for 25 LIG flats. The controversy remains regarding the 50 MIG flats.
(7.2) Ex. P13 is letter dt. 19.05.03 written by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is stated by the plaintiff that he started the work of cleaning the floors and the spider webs in the 50 flats. The Suit No. 107/13 Page 13/28 -14- contents of the letter suggest that he did not do further work as payment was not being released to him by the defendant. Ex. P16 is letter dt. 31.05.03. In this letter the plaintiff told the defendant that we had not received the list of defects in the flats. Ex. P17 is letter dt. 03.06.03 from the defendant to the plaintiff. In this letter the defects were pointed out to the plaintiff. Ex. P20 is letter dt. 12.06.03 from the plaintiff to the defendant. In this letter the plaintiff stated that he had completed all 50 flats in all respect after attending the defects which were apparent. It is not stated that all defects as pointed out by the defendant in Ex. P17 had been removed. In Ex. P20 itself it is also written that the items of supplementary agreement had not been communicated to the plaintiff. Reading Ex. P20 again gives the impression that the defects in the 50 flats were not actually removed. Had the plaintiff removed all defects and completed the finishing work, there was no occasion for him to write that the items of supplementary agreement had not been communicated to him. The letters written by the plaintiff to the defendant also show that the plaintiff claimed Suit No. 107/13 Page 14/28 -15- that the fittings had not been supplied to him which led to delay in completion of the flats. This stand taken by the plaintiff is also contrary to the declaration made by him in his letter dt. 18.02.1998 copy of which is at page 577 of the court file. In this letter the plaintiff stated that various fittings were lying under his safe custody and that these items will be fixed as and when desired by the defendant. Plaintiff continued to write to the defendant that he had completed the work of 50 flats and the defendant denied the same. The contents of the letters mentioned above suggest that the defects were not removed and the finishing work was not completed. When the defendant denied that the work had not been completed, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove the same. Failure of the defendant to lead evidence on the point that it got the work completed through any third party, does not establish the claim of the plaintiff that he completed the work of 50 flats. Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to the amount claimed by him towards the 50 flats. Now I shall take up the claim regarding the 25 LIG flats which is admitted. It is to be seen whether the defendant Suit No. 107/13 Page 15/28 -16- can retain this amount towards the cost of work not completed by the plaintiff.
(7.3) Under Clause 3 of the Conditions of Contract Act, the Engineer Incharge has the power to withdraw the work and claim the damages from the contractor in respect of the incompleted work. The assessment by the Engineer Incharge regarding the value of the withdrawn work is final. Ex. DW1/27 is the letter dt. 16.07.03 from the defendant to the plaintiff. This letter was accompanied by a calculation chart and the plaintiff was informed that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards the work not completed by him. Plaintiff has not pointed out any defect in calculation of the amount and it is final as per clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Defendant could have withheld and adjusted the amount of the 25 LIG flats towards part recovery of its claim. Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to any amount under claim 12 (b) also.
Suit No. 107/13 Page 16/28 -17-
8. (8.1) Under Claim 12 (c) plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,84,040/- towards security amount and interest which was withheld by the defendant. Defendant withheld this amount towards the recovery under clause 3 r/w clause 29 of the terms and conditions of the contract towards the incomplete work and also towards recovery of the watch and ward charges paid to the plaintiff for the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000. In reply the defendant has mentioned the amount as Rs.1,82,829/-. It is further stated that payment of Rs. 3,32,376/- to the plaintiff was on account and the security amount was liable to be withheld / adjusted under clause 29 (1) and (2) of the main agreement. In the replication instead of mentioning the amount as Rs. 1,84,040/- as stated in the plaint, the amount has been mentioned as Rs. 1,82,829/- as stated in the written statement. It is further stated in the replication that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards interest. It has been seen that defendant could have withheld / adjusted the amounts of the plaintiff towards the incomplete work. The value of incomplete work is mentioned as Rs. 1,25,000/- in Ex. DW1/27. Suit No. 107/13 Page 17/28 -18- Defendant had not paid the sum of Rs. 30,500/- towards the 25 LIG flat and this left a balance against the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 94,500/-. In claim 12 (e) plaintiff has stated that the defendant wrongfully withheld a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the final bill. In the WS the amount of claim 12 (e) is not disputed. Defendant could have adjusted this amount also and this leaves a balance of Rs. 74,500/- against the plaintiff. This amount of Rs. 74,500/- was liable to be deducted/adjusted from the security amount. In the replication, the plaintiff has adopted the same amount towards security deposit as stated in the written statement. Therefore the amount of Rs. 74,500/- was liable to be adjusted from the security amount of Rs.1,82,829/-. After this adjustment a balance of Rs. 1,08,329/- is found in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not complete the work and the defendant could have only recovered the amount required to complete the incomplete work. The balance in favour of the plaintiff has been work out by considering the claims under the individual heads and it would be proper to recapitulate the same. The total amount due in favour of the Suit No. 107/13 Page 18/28 -19- plaintiff was Rs. 1,82,829/- (amount of the security deposit) + the amount of Rs. 30,500/- towards the 25 LIG flats + Rs. 20,000/- towards the amount withheld from the final bill. Thus the total amount due in favour of the plaintiff was Rs. 2,33,329/-. The amount recoverable from the plaintiff was Rs. 1,25,000/-. By deducting Rs. 1,25,000/- from Rs. 2,33,329/- we arrive at the figure of Rs. 1,08,329/- which is the amount due in favour of the plaintiff. (8.2) Defendant claims that the payment towards watch and ward charges had wrongly been made to the plaintiff and the same is liable to be recovered. Therefore the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the payment already made towards watch and ward is to be considered to decide whether plaintiff is entitled for refund of the balance amount of the security deposit as mentioned above. According to the defendant, circulars 509, 510 and 520 were internal communications which did not create any right in favour of the contractors. It is also claimed that as provided in the circular 520 payment for watch and ward was to be made only after Suit No. 107/13 Page 19/28 -20- the contractor remove the defects. It is claimed that the plaintiff did not remove the defects and therefore he was not entitled for payment towards watch and ward.
(8.3) The contention of the defendant that the supplementary agreement was not validly entered and that circulars 509, 510 and 520 were meant for internal circulation only is without merit. It is an admitted fact that the process of allotment of the flats continued long after the date of completion of the project. It is also admitted fact that the contractor was supposed to deploy staff at the site to maintain watch and ward and to facilitate the handing over of the flats to the allottees. Earlier the contractors were not being paid anything for watch and ward after completion of the project. This caused resentment amongst the contractors and the defendant issued the circulars which provided for payment of watch and wards charges even for the intervening period. The supplementary agreement was entered into between the parties on 01.05.2008 and it is admitted that it expired on 30.04.99. Plaintiff has stated Suit No. 107/13 Page 20/28 -21- that the supplementary agreement further extended upto 30.04.2000. There is no written extension of the supplementary agreement. However, there is no specific denial in the written statement regarding extension of the supplementary agreement upto 30.04.2000. The period from 01.05.1998 to 30.04.2000 is of 23 months and the payment for watch and ward for this period amounts to Rs. 1,51,800/-. Defendant made the payment for watch and ward to the plaintiff upto 30.04.2000. Absence of specific denial coupled the fact that payment was made, confirms that the supplementary agreement had been extended upto 30.04.2000. DW1 has admitted that defendant never asked the plaintiff to produce the vouchers. During the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000 there is no letter from the defendant to the plaintiff containing allegation that the plaintiff was not providing the watch and ward services. The payment for watch and ward for the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000 was rightly made. Now it is to be considered whether this amount can be recovered on account of non removal of defects by the plaintiff.
Suit No. 107/13 Page 21/28 -22- (8.4) In the completion certificate Ex. D/PW1/A the defects have been mentioned generally without reference to any specific flat number. Flats were being handed over to the allottees in phased manner. The defects were to be removed and the finishing work was to be done at the time of allotment. Ex. P16 is letter dt. 04.04.2002 from the defendant to the plaintiff wherein it is stated that if the plaintiff was not removing the defects and completing the flats for handing over the same to the allottees. Ex. P8 is dt. 04.04.2003 by which plaintiff was asked to complete 102 flats purchased by Delhi Police. Defendant has not proved that the plaintiff did not remove the defects in the flats alloted during the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000. Defendant cannot withhold or recover the payment towards watch and ward for the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000 as during this period watch and ward service was provided and flats were handed over after removal of the defects. The dispute regarding non removal of defects after 30.04.2000 does not justify recovery of the watch and ward charges paid for the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000. Therefore the Suit No. 107/13 Page 22/28 -23- defendant is not entitled to withhold the balance amount of the security deposit towards recovery of the watch and ward charges. Plaintiff is entitled to refund of a sum of Rs. 1,08,329/- with interest. Question arises about the period for which interest is to be allowed and the rate at which interest is to be granted. There is no agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest and therefore the payment of interest will be governed by Section 3 (1)
(b) of The Interest Act, 1978 r/w Section 34 CPC. Though there were several communications from the plaintiff to the defendant before filing of the suit, no specific notice was given before filing the suit mentioning that the plaintiff will also claim interest. Therefore only pendente lite and future interest can be allowed. Plaintiff has demanded interest @ 18%p.a. but grant of interest @ 12% p.a. will be adequate and will serve the ends of justice.
9. Under Claim 12 (d) plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 82,773/- under clause 10 CC towards increase in the price of material. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 7450/- towards interest @ 18%p.a. Suit No. 107/13 Page 23/28 -24- He has not specified the time for which interest is claimed. The total amount claimed is Rs. 90,223/-. Plaintiff has not given the break up of the calculation. In the cross examination of DW1 suggestion has been given that clause 10 CC is also applicable towards the watch and ward charges. In his oral arguments also Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the amount is claimed under Clause 10 CC against the watch and ward charges. In the written arguments the break up of the amount is mentioned. The calculation has been done taking into consideration 25% towards the labour and 75% towards the material. The amount claimed in respect of LIG and MIG flats has also been separately mentioned. Plaintiff did not mention these facts in the plaint. In the plaint it is stated that the escalation is being claimed towards material. Argument cannot be advanced beyond pleading. In the cross examination as well as in oral arguments it is stated that the escalation is claimed towards watch and ward charges. Unless and until, the plaintiff clearly mentioned the manner in which the amount was claimed, defendant could not have properly replied. Since there is Suit No. 107/13 Page 24/28 -25- discrepancy in the pleading, evidence and written arguments, the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount under this head.
10.Claim 12 (e) has already been discussed while considering claim 12 (c) and it has been held that this amount was liable to be adjusted towards the demand of defendant for Rs. 1,25,000/- as mentioned in Ex. DW1/27. In the written statement defendant has also taken the plea of limitation. No issue regarding limitation has been framed. The contention of the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation as the final bill in respect of the main agreement was finalised on 08.10.98 is without merit. The dispute relates to the supplementary agreement. Final bill regarding the supplementary agreement was not prepared and vide letter Ex. DW1/27 dated 16.07.03 the estimate of the quantum of the incomplete work was communicated to the plaintiff. The decision of the defendant to adjust the payment of 25 LIG flats was communicated vide letter Ex. P10 dt. 26.04.03. In Ex. P10 it is stated about the security deposit that it would be released when it Suit No. 107/13 Page 25/28 -26- becomes due. Final bill had not been settled in respect of the supplementary agreement. The security deposit was forfeited vide letter Ex. P15 dt. 20.05.03. The cause of action for filing the suit is existed even on 16.07.03. The suit was filed on 16.07.03 and it was well within time.
11.ISSUE No. (iv) : Relief : In view of the above discussion on the claim of the plaintiff under different heads under paragraph 12 of the plaint it is held that plaintiff is entitled only to recovery of Rs. 1,08,329/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Nine only) with simple pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. Plaintiff has also prayed for declaration that defendant has no authority to seek the refund of the payment already made towards the watch and ward services. This aspect has already been decided in favour of the plaintiff and pursuance to that it has been held that the plaintiff is entitled to part refund of the security amount with pendente lite and future interest as mentioned above. Plaintiff is not seeking a negative declaration regarding pecuniary Suit No. 107/13 Page 26/28 -27- liability. The decision of the defendant to recover the money already paid affects legal right of the plaintiff and therefore he is entitled to the declaration. Plaintiff has also prayed for injunction to restrain the defendant from adjusting the amount paid towards watch and ward from other payment of the plaintiff. This relief naturally flows from the relief of declaration and the decision regarding part refund of the security deposit with interest.
12.The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff thereby declaring that defendant has no right to recover the sum of Rs. 1,51,800/- paid towards Watch and Ward services during the period 01.05.98 to 30.04.2000. Decree of injunction is also granted to the plaintiff restraining the defendant from recovering this amount from other payment of the plaintiff except the adjustments which have been allowed by this Court. A money decree is also passed in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,08,329/- (One Lakh Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Nine only) Suit No. 107/13 Page 27/28 -28- with simple pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. together with proportionate cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/06/2014 (RAJESH KUMAR SINGH) Additional District Judge -5/Central Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi Suit No. 107/13 Page 28/28