Delhi District Court
M/S Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. ... vs Sh. Paritosh Garg on 8 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. UMANG JOSHI
CIVIL JUDGE-04, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No. 759/2021
M/s Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd.
602, Ring Road Mall, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi- 110085.
........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Paritosh Garg
S/o Sh. H.K. Garg,
A-43, Kewal Park Extension,
Azadpur, Delhi- 110033.
2. Prashant Garg
S/o Sh. H.K. Garg,
A-43, Kewal Park Extension,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
........Defendants
Date of Institution : 18.03.2021
Date of Reserving Judgment : 06.12.2023
Date of Decision : 08.01.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 98,100/-
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of 98,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation.
Umang Digitally signed by
Umang Joshi
Joshi Date: 2024.01.08
17:10:41 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 1 of 14
A. Plaintiff's case as averred in the plaint:
2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case as averred in the plaint is that plaintiff is a company and is being represented by Sh. Ankur Gupta who is duly authorised vide board resolution dated 07.12.2020 to act on its behalf. It is further stated that plaintiff entered into a registered lease agreement dated 09.06.2017 (hereinafter also referred as "lease deed") for premises on western side first floor portion admeasuring about 1050 square feet, being part of built property with land comprising in khasra no. 876/2 min, situated at main 100 feet road and within the extended Lal Dora abadi of village Burari, Delhi- 110084 (hereinafter also referred as "tenanted premises"). It is further stated that the lease deed was for a period of 9 years with increase in rent after every 3 years and initial rent being Rs. 30,000/- for the first 36 months. It is further stated that the plaintiff had also paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as interest free security deposit as mentioned in clause 17 of the said lease deed. It is further stated that the said amount was to be refunded to the plaintiff on termination of lease deed by the defendants. It is further stated that the lease deed was terminated by mutual consent on 31.12.2019 and the possession of the property was handed over to the defendants. It is further stated that the defendants had agreed to refund the security amount of Rs. 90,000/- within a week from 31.12.2019 but the defendants failed to pay the said interest free deposit amount to the plaintiff despite repeated requests of the plaintiff and despite the plaintiff issuing a legal notice dated 16.10.2020 to the defendants. Therefore, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief as mentioned in paragraph no.1.
Umang Digitally signed by
Umang Joshi
Joshi Date: 2024.01.08
17:11:04 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 2 of 14
B. Defendants' case as per the Written Statement:
3. The defendants in the written statement have admitted that a registered lease deed dated 09.06.2017 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the tenanted premises as has been averred in the plaint. Furthermore, the defendants in the written statement have also admitted that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the defendants as interest free security deposit as mentioned in clause 17 of the lease deed. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the defendants as interest free security deposit. However, it has been denied in the written statement that the lease deed was terminated by mutual consent on 31.12.2019. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff had paid the monthly rent upto December, 2019 and it is further stated that the plaintiff took undue advantage of the lockdown and vacated the tenanted premises on or about 31.03.2020 without knowledge and consent of the defendants and the plaintiff did not even give two months prior notice before vacating the tenanted premises. The primary defence put forth by the defendants in the written statement is that the plaintiff is liable to pay three months rent to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and is also liable to pay two months rent amounting to Rs.60,000/- for not giving the two months prior notice before vacating the tenanted premises and the said sum comes to Rs. 1,50,000/- which has been adjusted by the defendants by deducting the same from the security deposit of Rs.90,000/-given by the plaintiff. The defendants in the written statement have denied the claim of the plaintiff and have stated that the defendants are entitled to receive Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff.
Umang Digitally signed by
Umang Joshi
Joshi Date: 2024.01.08
17:11:14 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 3 of 14
C. Replication:
4. In pursuance of the written statement filed by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the replication in which the averments of the plaint have been reiterated and the defence put forth by the defendants in the written statement has been denied.
D. Issues framed in the suit:
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 27.08.2022 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 98,100/- along with interest @ 9% in his favour and against the defendants ? OPP ii. Relief.
E. Plaintiff's Evidence:
6. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined its authorised representative namely Mr. Ankur Gupta as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents to prove its case which are as follows:
i. Copy of Board Resolution dated 07.12.2020 Ex. PW1/A (OSR).
ii. Copy of Lease Deed Mark A.
iii. Copy of whatsapp chat Mark B.
iv. Copy of Legal Notice dated 16.10.2020 Ex. PW1/B (Colly).
v. Original postal receipts Ex. PW1/C.
vi. Tracking report Ex. PW1/D.
Umang Digitally signed by
Umang Joshi
Joshi Date: 2024.01.08
17:11:23 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 4 of 14
7. Thereafter, PW-1 was duly cross examined by the counsel for defendant.
Furthermore, no other witnesses were examined by the plaintiff to prove its case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence.
E. Defendant's Evidence:
8. In order to prove its case, the defendant no.1 namely Mr. Paritosh Garg stepped into the witness box and was examined by the defendants as DW-1. DW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following documents to prove its case which are as follows:
i. Copy of aadhar card of defendant no.1 Ex. DW1/1 (OSR). ii. Reply of legal notice dated 28.10.2020 Ex. DW1/2.
9. Thereafter, DW-1 was duly cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff after which the evidence of defendant was closed.
F. Final arguments:
10.Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments and thereafter final arguments were heard at length from both the parties. Furthermore, written submissions were also filed by both the parties after the conclusion of final arguments.
11.I have heard the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record thoroughly.
Umang Digitally signed by
Umang Joshi
Joshi Date: 2024.01.08
17:11:35 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 5 of 14
G. Findings on Issues:
Issue no.i:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 98,100/- along with
interest @ 9% in his favour and against the defendants? OPP
12.The onus to prove the present issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of 98,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff is claiming the refund of the security deposit amounting to Rs.90,000/- as the principal outstanding amount from the defendants along with interest on the said amount for a period of one year @ 9 % p.a. amounting to Rs.8100/-. As per the averments in the plaint, the lease deed i.e. Mark A was terminated by mutual consent on 31.12.2019 and thereafter the possession of the property was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants but the security deposit of Rs.90,000/- which was paid by the plaintiff was not refunded or returned by the defendants to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the question that needs to be determined is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the said security deposit amounting to Rs.90,000/-.
13.Firstly, it is not in dispute that a registered lease deed dated 09.06.2017 i.e. Mark A was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the tenanted premises as the same has been admitted by the defendants in the written statement. Therefore, the execution as well as the genuineness of the lease deed i.e. Mark A which is also exhibited as Ex. DW1/P1 is not in dispute and the contents of the said lease deed has been admitted by both the parties. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as interest free security deposit to the defendants in terms of clause 17 of the lease deed as the same has also been admitted by the defendants in Umang Digitally signed by Umang Joshi Joshi Date: 2024.01.08 17:11:54 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 6 of 14 its written statement and the same has also been admitted by DW-1 in his cross examination.
14.Perusal of the lease deed i.e. Mark A which is also exhibited as Ex. DW1/P1 denotes that the same was executed between the defendants being the lessors of the tenanted premises and the plaintiff being the lessee represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Ankur Gupta i.e. PW-1. It is pertinent to mention that the name of defendant no. 1 and 2 is jointly mentioned as lessors in the said lease deed.
15.It is the plaintiff's case that the lease deed i.e. Mark A was terminated between the parties by mutual consent on 31.12.2019 and thereafter the possession of the property was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants. Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down a cardinal rule of evidence and provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any special law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to substantiate and prove the said assertion i.e. the termination of the lease deed through mutual consent by leading clear and cogent evidence. However, the plaintiff did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that the said lease deed was terminated between the parties by mutual consent on 31.12.2019 for reasons explained hereunder.
16. It is imperative to mention that there is no provision in the lease deed i.e. Mark A (which is also exhibited as Ex. DW1/P1) providing for termination of the lease deed through mutual consent of the parties. Perusal of the lease deed i.e. Mark A denotes that the provisions as to the termination of the lease deed are provided only under clause 14 and clause 24 of the lease deed.
Umang Digitally signed by
Umang Joshi
Joshi Date: 2024.01.08
17:12:11 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 7 of 14
17.Clause 14 of the lease deed provides for termination of the lease deed by the lessors in the event the lessee commits a breach of the covenants of the lease deed and fails to remedy or rectify the said breach within 60 days. Furthermore, clause 24 of the lease deed provides for termination of the lease deed by the lessee and provides that the lessee shall be entitled to terminate the lease by giving 2 months prior notice in writing to the lessors or rent in lieu thereof. It is pertinent to mention that the lease deed i.e. Mark A entered between the plaintiff and the defendants does not contain any clause or any provision providing for termination of the lease deed through mutual consent and therefore it is inexplicable as to how the said lease deed could have been terminated through mutual consent as claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the said lease deed was terminated between the parties by mutual consent.
18.At this stage, it is also imperative to analyse the evidence lead by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff had vacated the tenanted premises before the expiry of the lease deed. It is pertinent to mention that during his cross examination, PW-1 i.e. the AR of the plaintiff admitted that if the plaintiff vacated the premises before expiry of the lease deed, then the plaintiff had to give 2 months prior notice in writing in advance to the defendants or 2 months rent as mentioned in paragraph 24 of the lease deed dated 09.06.2017. PW-1 in his cross examination further admitted that the plaintiff had not paid the rent of 2 months in lieu of advance notice of vacating the tenanted premises and further admitted that no legal notice was sent by the plaintiff prior to vacating the tenanted premises.
19.It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff being the lessee of the tenanted premises was entitled to terminate the lease deed only in accordance with clause 24 of the lease deed which provides that the lessee shall be entitled to Umang Digitally signed by Umang Joshi Joshi Date: 2024.01.08 17:12:22 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 8 of 14 terminate the lease by giving 2 months prior notice in writing to the lessors or rent in lieu thereof. However, PW-1 in his testimony admitted that the plaintiff had not given any prior notice to the defendants i.e. the lessors before vacating the tenanted premises and also admitted that the plaintiff had not paid the rent of 2 months to the defendant amounting to Rs.60,000/- in lieu of advance notice of vacating the tenanted premises. In other words, PW-1 has himself admitted that the plaintiff did not comply with clause 24 of the lease deed, which was the only permissible mode of termination of the lease deed available to the plaintiff being the lessee of the tenanted premises. Furthermore, the copy of the alleged whatsapp chat i.e. Mark B relied upon by the plaintiff does not in any manner give credence to the version put forth by the plaintiff that the lease deed was terminated through mutual consent. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the said lease deed was terminated between the parties by mutual consent on 31.12.2019 as averred in the plaint.
20.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff was liable to pay the rent of 2 months to the defendants amounting to Rs.60,000/- as admittedly no prior notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendants before vacating the tenanted premises in terms of clause 24 of the lease deed.
21.It is now imperative to analyse the defence put forth by the defendants. The defendants in the written statement denied that the lease deed was terminated by mutual consent on 31.12.2019. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff had paid the monthly rent upto December, 2019 and it is further stated that the plaintiff had vacated the tenanted premises on or about 31.03.2020 without knowledge and consent of the defendant. The primary defence put forth by the defendants in the written statement is that the plaintiff is liable to pay three months rent to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and is also liable to pay two months rent to the defendants amounting to Rs.60,000/ for Umang Digitally signed by Umang Joshi Joshi Date: 2024.01.08 17:12:33 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 9 of 14 not giving the two months prior notice before vacating the tenanted premises and the said sum comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-.
22.It is pertinent to mention that the defendants in the written statement have admitted that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the defendants as interest free security deposit as mentioned in clause 17 of the lease deed. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the defendants as interest free security deposit.
23.Ld. counsel for the defendants argued that the security deposit of Rs.90,000/-
was to be refunded to the plaintiff only after deducting the outstanding dues payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as provided in clause 17 of the lease deed. Ld. counsel for the defendants further argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as the security deposit given by the plaintiff amounting to Rs.90,000/- was adjusted towards the outstanding liability of the plaintiff towards the defendants amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and that even after deducting the outstanding dues payable by the plaintiff to the defendants from the security deposit, the plaintiff is still liable to pay Rs.60,000/- to the defendants as averred in the written statement.
24. It has been held in the preceding paragraphs that the plaintiff was liable to pay the rent of two months to the defendants amounting to Rs.60,000/- as no prior notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendants before vacating the tenanted premises as per clause 24 of the lease deed. Therefore, since the plaintiff has admittedly failed to comply with clause 24 of the lease deed, the defendants can rightfully adjust the said outstanding sum of Rs. 60,000/- by deducting the same from the security deposit of Rs.90,000/- in terms of clause 17 of the lease deed.
Umang Digitally signed by
Umang Joshi
Joshi Date: 2024.01.08
17:12:51 +05'30'
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 10 of 14
25.Furthermore, it is imperative to examine the other defence put forth by the defendants that the plaintiff did not pay the rent of three months to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/-. As per the averments in the written statement, the plaintiff did not pay the rent of three months to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and it is further stated that even the said outstanding amount payable by the plaintiff as arrears of rent of three months can be deducted and adjusted by the defendants from the amount of security deposit in addition to the amount of Rs.60,000/-.
26.Therefore, the question that needs to be determined is whether the plaintiff had defaulted in paying the rent of three months to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/- thereby entitling the defendants to deduct and adjust the said alleged outstanding sum from the amount of security deposit of the plaintiff. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff had paid the monthly rent only till December, 2019 and it is further stated that the plaintiff had vacated the tenanted premises on or about 31.03.2020 without knowledge and consent of the defendants. In other words, the defendants have contended that the plaintiff did not pay rent of three months i.e. from January 2020- March 2020 to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and have further contended that the said alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 90,000/- has to be deducted and adjusted by the defendants from the amount of security deposit in addition to the deduction of the outstanding amount of Rs.60,000/- from the security deposit.
27.It is pertinent to mention that the defendants have lead no evidence whatsoever to substantiate and prove that the plaintiff had defaulted in paying the rent of three months i.e. from January 2020- March 2020 to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/-. Furthermore, the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff had vacated the tenanted premises on or about 31.03.2020. It is Umang Digitally signed by Umang Joshi Joshi Date: 2024.01.08 17:13:02 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 11 of 14 pertinent to mention that DW-1 in his cross examination deposed that he does not know when the possession of the tenanted premises were handed over to him by the plaintiff and further stated that the premises were found to be vacant when he went to the premises in April, 2020. Therefore, the defendants have even failed to prove that plaintiff vacated the tenanted premises on or about 31.03.2020 as averred in the written statement.
28.The onus was upon the defendants to prove that the plaintiff did not pay the rent of three months i.e. from January 2020- March 2020 to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/-. However, the defendants have miserably failed to prove and substantiate that the plaintiff had defaulted in paying the rent of three months to the defendants and have made mere bald assertions unsubstantiated by any cogent and credible evidence. If the plaintiff had indeed not paid the rent of three months to the defendants as alleged by the defendants, the defendants were at liberty to institute a suit for recovery of the said amount from the plaintiff or the defendants could have atleast filed a counter claim in the present suit so as to recover the alleged three months arrears of rent from the plaintiff. However, no counter claim was filed by the defendants in the present suit which renders the said defence of the defendants unworthy of credence. Furthermore, if the plaintiff had indeed defaulted in payment of the rent of three months, the defendants could have atleast sent a legal notice or any letter or reminder to the plaintiff thereby demanding the alleged arrears of rent. However, no legal notice or any document whatsoever was placed on record by the defendants to show that the defendants had demanded the alleged arrears of rent from the plaintiff. The defendants have therefore failed to prove that the plaintiff did not pay the rent of three months to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and have merely made bald assertions unsubstantiated by any cogent and credible evidence. Therefore, since the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff did not pay the Umang Digitally signed by Umang Joshi Joshi Date: 2024.01.08 17:13:14 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 12 of 14 alleged rent of three months to the defendants amounting to Rs. 90,000/-, the defendants have no right to deduct and adjust the said sum from the amount of security deposit paid by the plaintiff.
29.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the plaintiff was liable to pay the rent of two months to the defendant amounting to Rs.60,000/- as no prior notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant before vacating the tenanted premises in terms of clause 24 of the lease deed and the said outstanding sum of Rs.60,000/- has not been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. Therefore, since the plaintiff has failed to pay the pay the rent of two months to the defendants amounting to Rs.60,000/- before vacating the tenanted premises as per clause 24 of the lease deed, the defendants have the right to deduct only the said outstanding dues of Rs. 60,000/- from the security deposit of Rs.90,000/- of the plaintiff in terms of clause 17 of the lease deed.
30.Consequently, after deduction of the aforesaid dues of Rs.60,000/- by the defendants from the security deposit of the plaintiff amounting to Rs.90,000/- in terms of clause 17 of the lease deed, the plaintiff is still entitled to receive and recover Rs. 30,000/- from the defendants which has not been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. The defendants have no right to retain or withhold the said amount of Rs.30,000/- and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said sum of Rs.30,000/- from the defendants in terms of clause 17 of the lease deed.
31.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present issue is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of Rs.30,000/- from the defendants towards the refund of the security deposit after the deduction of the outstanding dues as explained in the foregoing paragraphs.
Umang Digitally signed by Umang Joshi Joshi Date: 2024.01.08 17:13:27 +05'30' Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 13 of 14
32.The plaintiff has also prayed for interest @ 9% per annum. Since the amount of Rs.30,000/- has been withheld by the defendants without any basis and has not been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to receive interest on the said sum. Considering the prevailing market conditions and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court deems it equitable to grant simple interest @ 9% per annum on the said sum of Rs.30,000/-.
Relief:
33.In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings on the above issue, the present suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as follows:
a) The defendants shall jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realisation of the decreetal amount.
b) No order as to costs.
34.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
35.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on this 8th day of January 2024. This Judgment consists of 14 signed pages.
Digitally signed by Umang Umang Joshi Joshi
Date: 2024.01.08 17:13:53
+05'30'
(UMANG JOSHI)
Civil Judge-04, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
08.01.2024
Civil Suit no. 759/2021 M/s. Goodluck Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paritosh Garg and Anr. Page no. 14 of 14