Delhi District Court
Mrs. Savita Mehta vs M/S Chandan & Chandan Enterprises Pvt. ... on 19 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK:
ADJ16(Central)TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS NO. 167/2016/08
New Case No. 611673/16
Mrs. Savita Mehta
W/o Late Sh. Nanak Chand Mehta
A228, Defence Colony,
New Delhi - 110024 ...... PLAINTIFF
VS.
M/s Chandan & Chandan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Chairman & Managing Director
Col. M.L. Chandan (Rtd.)
D47, Defence Colony,
New Delhi 110024 ..... DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.09.2008
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 03.09.2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19.09.2016
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a suit for recovery of money/damages along with interest. The plaintiff is stated to be a 77 years old widow and retired school teacher. Defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act having engaged in the CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 1 of 53 business of construction. Plaintiff's husband late Mr. Nanak Chand Mehta was the owner of lease hold residential Plot at A228, Defence Colony, New Delhi measuring 217 Sq. Yds. allotted by L&D.O. under registered sale deed dated 26.4.2000. Late Sh. Nanak Chand Mehta had converted the said property into free hold vide registered conveyance deed dated 18.09.2000.
2. Since the plaintiff's husband was a Cancer patient and had to incur heavy expenditure on his treatment. Being a pensioner he decided to supplement his income with a rental income and with this idea in mind the husband of plaintiff stated to have entered into a Property Development Agreement dated 16.01.2004 with the defendant company. As per such agreement defendant was required to demolish the existing structure of the property in question and to construct in its place a new building comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor along with servant quarters and bathroom/toilets on the terrace as per agreed plans and specifications at the cost and risk of the defendant.
CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 2 of 53
3. Under the said agreement it was agreed that owner of the property will retain the ownership of the ground floor (including front court yard and rear court yard), second floor and terrace along with 70% indivisible share in the land underneath the built up structure. It was also agreed that owner of the property will have right to use the two servant quarters with bathroom/ toilets on the terrace whereas defendant will have first floor of the property along with 30% indivisible share in the land underneath the structure. Defendant was also entitled to use one servant quarter with common bathroom/toilet on the terrace.
4. As per the above said agreement on 16.1.2004 owner of the property vacated the same and handed over its possession to defendant for commencement of the demolition work and construction work on it. Husband of the plaintiff Nanak Chand Mehta expired on 15.5.2004 during the period when development work on the property was going on. Plaintiff stated to have succeeded to the Estate of her deceased husband by virtue of registered Will dated 26.11.2001 as well as because CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 3 of 53 of registered Relinquishment deed dated 18.9.2007.
5. It is stated that as per clause 13 of the Property Development Agreement, defendant was required to commence and complete the demolition and construction of the new building as per specifications within the period of 9 months from the date of agreement i.e. 16.1.2004. It was further stipulated that time being essence of the agreement, in case of delay in completion of building, defendant/developer would be liable to pay to owner Rs. 25,000/ per month for 10 th and 11th month and Rs. 50,000/ per month from the 12 th month onwards. Delay beyond the period of 12 months would entitle the owner to terminate the agreement in accordance with clause 27 of the agreement. It is further stated that defendant failed to complete the construction of the building as per specifications and plans mentioned in the agreement within the stipulated period. Due to delay plaintiff moved into the new building in March 2005 instead of October 2004. As such there was delay of five months and as per clause 13 of the agreement. Defendant was liable to pay sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ to the plaintiff for delay in completion CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 4 of 53 of construction work for five months.
6. It is stated that even plaintiff when moved into building in March 2005, defendant had left certain areas of the building unfinished, promising to finish them at a later date. Type of material used in the construction of building was not as per the specifications as Schedule B to the Development Agreement. It was also agreed that if the actual material used was costlier then the contracted material, the plaintiff would reimburse the defendant and similarly if the actual material used was cheaper then the contacted material, defendant would be liable to reimburse the difference of the amount to, plaintiff. As per arrangement a statement of account was prepared by the representative of the defendant and brought to the plaintiff. Certain errors and omissions were noted to representative of the defendant who made some on the spot corrections in his own hand on Detailed examination of that statement. Later plaintiff also noted some other omission, details of which were given to representative of defendant. As a matter of fact that defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of 2,89,907/.
CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 5 of 53
7. It is further mentioned in the plaint that it was stipulated under clause 32 of above said agreement that defendant would be liable to keep the building in a state of good repair for a period of one year from the day plaintiff moved into the said building. It was agreed that if the building needed repair or reconstruction or reerection of any nature, the same would be carried out by the defendant at his own cost. However, defendant allegedly stopped attending to the plaintiff's request just after three months of plaintiff moved into new building. On 26.7.2005 plaintiff was constrained to write a letter to defendant pointing out that there had been seepage in different parts of the building and also noted number of flaws and repairs required to be attended to. Plaintiff also asked the defendant to pay the amount due towards her on account of unfinished works in the building. In response to said letter dated 26.7.2005 of plaintiff defendant had given a belated reply dated 31.8.2005 received to plaintiff on 5.9.2005 mentioning therein false and reckless allegations and also taking certain lame excuses only with the intention to wriggle out its CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 6 of 53 obligations under the agreement. It is further more defendant admitted in that reply that certain portions of the building were left incomplete.
8. It is further alleged that it was very much known to the defendant that plaintiff was intended to derive rental income by letting out second floor of the building but due to defendant's acts initially the plaintiff had to suffer a five months delay in getting the possession. Even thereafter due to continuing work on defendant's share of building ( first floor) and the main staircase from court yard yet to be finished. Thereafter plaintiff had to face great difficulty in letting out the second floor of the apartment. Plaintiff could let out the second floor only in the month of August 2005 to Miss Amanda Fisher on a monthly rent of Rs. 25,000/ per month. It is stated that said rent could have been higher if defendant would have carried out construction/repairs work as per the agreement. It is alleged that plaintiff had suffered loss of rent of Rs. 40,000/ per month for a total period of nine months i.e. from November 2004 to July 2005.
CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 7 of 53
9. Plaintiff stated to have served a legal notice dated 27.9.2005. It is stated by plaintiff that though a certified valuer of the building also got report regarding estimated amount spent on building work left incomplete in the building as well as for carrying out repairs and other works. It is to be to the tune of 4,00,000/. Since as per clause15 of the Property Development Agreement the defendant had agreed to indemnify all losses and expenses on account of any violation on by laws. Plaintiff had to pay Rs. 1,73,440/ to the Municipal Corporation on account of regularisation charges for the ground floor and second floor. It is alleged that despite their being delay of five months in completing the construction. Even when the plaintiff moved into the building various work like woodwork, sanitary works, electrical work, grinding/polishing, spray painting etc. were carried out in a haphazard manner causing disturbance, nuisance, physical discomfort and mental agony to plaintiff who is stated to asthma patient. Plaintiff therefore stated to be entitled to claim Rs. 1,00,000/ on account of said disturbance. CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 8 of 53
10. It is stated that as per clause 25 (a) of the Property Development Agreement it was agreed that the elevation of the building will not be altered by the floor owners. However defendant in violation of this clause and inspite of objections raised by the plaintiff has altered the front elevation of the first floor of the property and thus has ruined the aesthetics of the entire building. It is stated that defendant also installed in the rear balcony of the entire first floor and iron grill projecting about one and half feet outside the balcony for the purpose of storing materials/plants etc. Since the grill so installed as projecting right above the rear court yard of ground floor, same is creating nuisance on daily basis in several ways for plaintiff. Moreover electric lights in the common staircase were supposed to be connected floor wise to the respective floor meters. However, defendant has connected electric lights in the staircase including the ones outside the first floor, with plaintiff's electricity meter due to which plaintiff has been paying entire electricity charges for the staircase. On this count also plaintiff's demand a sum of Rs. 10,000/ as compensation from defendant.
CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 9 of 53
11. It is further alleged that main electricity supply to defendant's share in the building i.e. first floor is not connected through a circuit breaker, rather connected directly because of which there is likelihood of causing fire/explosion at the main electricity distribution panel which located in the passage just outside the main entrance of the ground floor of the property. Thus defendant has created a fire hazard in the building and is particularly dangerous at the ground floor. Due to substandard work done by the defendant there is extensive seepage from the first floor to certain areas of the ground floor including bath room and bed room and rear court yard. Defendant further installed water meter in the name of late husband of the plaintiff at first floor as such plaintiff has been paying water charges even pertaining to first floor of the property in question for last three years.
12. It is stated that since it was provided under clause 35 of Property Development Agreement that in case of any dispute in connection with the said agreement parties shall attempt CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 10 of 53 within 15 days of receipt of notice to settle the dispute at first instance by mutual discussion and only after failing to resolve the dispute in such manner, parties shall resort to initiate the legal proceedings. Plaintiff, therefore, lastly served legal notice dated 20.8.2008 to defendant to call upon him to settle the dispute. But defendant allegedly did not respond, therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 18,68,347/ by giving break up of different particulars of claim in tabulated form mentioned in para 29 of the plaint. Plaintiff has further prayed for pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff has prayed for giving directions to the defendant to restore, remove and to do all such other acts which have been earlier done in contravention of Property Development Agreement dated 16.01.2004
13. Defendant filed the written statement taking the objections therein that suit has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as suit is filed after the period of three years. All the accounts had already stood settled on 28.3.2005 as such the CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 11 of 53 suit of the plaintiff is devoid of any cause of action. Moreover, plaintiff concealed the material facts. It is stated that plaintiff has filed the present suit only to extort money from the defendant as such the suit is not maintainable. It is stated that plaintiff is aware that MCD building plan for property in question was got sanctioned by her husband on 6.5.2003 long before the property development agreement dated 16.1.2004. Plaintiff is aware that her husband had asked for construction of 1350 Sq. feet per floor and entered into an agreement for construction of the same knowingfully that sanction plan was for 1039 Sq. feet per floor. Plaintiff therefore is estopped from claiming damages on alleged construction etc.
14. It is pleaded that late Sh. N.C. Mehta was also aware that in the year 200405 that there was no provision for regularisation of unauthorised addition construction. MCD sanction plan has, therefore deliberately not been placed on record. It is pleaded that earlier husband of the plaintiff, after his death her son Arvind Mehta has been supervising every step of construction and had themselves selected material for CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 12 of 53 construction. But thereafter filed the present false case. It is stated that suit has not been properly verified and appropriate court fee has not been furnished. Moreover, the suit is bad for non joinder of owner of first floor of Property No. A228, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
15. Suit of the plaintiff has been denied on merits except the fact that N.C. Mehta was the owner of the property in question. It is also not disputed that husband of the plaintiff had entered into Property Development Agreement dated 16.1.2004 with defendant. It is stated that husband of the plaintiff has already got construction plan sanctioned from MCD on 6.5.2003 and Property Development Agreement was entered into after about one year. It is stated that plaintiff has concealed the fact that her husband had executed a registered power of attorney regarding first floor of the property in question, in favour of defendant which was duly registered on 16.1.2004. While denying other allegations in the plaint it is pleaded that sanctioned plan was made part of the agreement dated 16.1.2004 and there is no clause in that agreement whereby it is CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 13 of 53 provided that in case of any unauthorised construction if raised, same would be at the risk and cost of the defendant. Since sanctioned plan provide for construction for 1039 Sq. feet per floor but plaintiff instructed the defendant to construct 1350 Sq. feet per floor. Such extra construction was at the cost and risk of late Sh. N.C. Mehta and after his death upon plaintiff.
16. It is pleaded that there is no delay in completion of construction work attributable to defendant. Therefore, defendant is not liable in any manner. While not denying the stipulation under the agreement, clause 13 whereby it was agreed upon that construction is to be completed within 9 months. However, it is stated since late Sh. N.C. Mehta and thereafter his widow, plaintiff and her son did not terminate nor gave anything in writing or orally, rather shifted into the premises after completion of the construction, clearly show that plaintiff was aware that defendant has not delayed in raising construction. Moreover, even when the accounts were settled on 28.3.2005, no issue was raised regarding delay. After settling the account on 28.3.2005, rather plaintiff had to pay Rs. 25,000/ CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 14 of 53 to defendant which on the request of the plaintiff and her son, defendant agreed not to take those Rs. 25,000/ and defendant rather paid Rs. 50,000/ by cheque No. 297155 drawn on HDFC Bank dated 28.3.2005.
17. Defendant, therefore specifically denied delay of 5 months or liability of Rs. 2,00,000/ for such delay. It is pleaded that it is due to demolition by MCD of excess part of construction as raised on the instruction of Mr. Nanak Chand Mehta and Arvind Mehta as well as plaintiff, delay had accrued in completion of work. After the demolition of excess portion by MCD, on the asking of plaintiff and Arvind Mehta, defendant reconstructed it. Moreover, Mr. Arvind Mehta asked for elevations which were not in building plan annexed with the agreement. Consequently time for reconstructing was added to 9 months time period and delay penalty was not to be invoked. It is denied that plaintiff had moved into the building in March 2005, it is pleaded that she moved into the same in January 2005. It is also denied that defendant had left certain areas of the building unfinished or promised to finish them at later date. CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 15 of 53
18. Defendant has further denied that any cheaper material of construction was used. It is pleaded that during the life time of Sh. N.C. Mehta, he himself was selecting the material and after his death his son Sh. Arvind Mehta was selecting the same. Moreover, in January 2005 at the time of handing over of possession, a detailed inspection was done by plaintiff and her son and everything was found in order, as per agreement. Had there been any defect or unfinished work, the same would have been put in writing specially when the accounts were settled on 28.3.2005.
19 While denying the other allegations of the plaintiff, though it is not disputed that clause 32 of the agreement was valid for one year./ It is stated that defendant continue to look after the building at his own cost despite accounts already settled finally on 28.3.2005. Letter of plaintiff dated 26.7.2005 was duly replied by defendant on 31.8.2005 whereby all the allegations were denied.
20. It is pleaded that defendant has already sold the first CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 16 of 53 floor of the property, which came to his share, to one Mrs. Ritu Prakash W/o Vikram Prakash. Whatever work was to be done in that floor, same was of no concern to plaintiff as plaintiff is not owner of entire building but owner only to the extent, which fell to her share under the agreement dated 16.1.2004. It is denied that main staircase or front court yard of the building was not properly finished or plaintiff has to face any difficulty in letting out the second floor of the property. It is stated that defendant is not liable for any delay in letting out that portion or loss of any rental income. The alleged report of certified valuer of the building is denied. All the others allegations have been denied.
21 Plaintiff filed the replication to the WS of defendant whereby all his pleadings were controverted. Case of the plaintiff was reiterated.
22 On the basis of pleadings as come on record, following issues were framed on 24.4.2009.
ISSUES CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 17 of 53
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount of Rs. 18,68,347/ ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if so, at what rate and for which period?OPP 3 Whether the suit as filed is barred by limitation?
OPD
4 Whether the suit has not been properly verified, if
so, its effect? OPD
5 Whether the suit suffers from the defect of
deficiency of court fee, if so, its effect? OPD 6 Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties? OPD 7 Relief
23. On behalf of plaintiff affectively 11 witnesses were examined, PW1 is plaintiff Savita Mehta, PW2 is Ravi Trihant from O/o SubRegistrar, another witness has been examined as PW2 namely Bharat Arora S/o Bhagat Arora, PW3 is A. K. Choppra, Asstt. Engineer, L & DO, another witness has been examined as PW3 namely Sh. C. K. Bhagat S/o M. N. Bhagat, PW4 is S. K. Singh, Architect, PW5 is CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 18 of 53 Krishan Kaushik, Record Keeper, Building Department, MCD, PW6 is Sh. Girish Kumar, JE, NDMC, PW7 is Arvind Mehta( Son of plaintiff), PW8 is Mrs. Renu Prakash W/o Sh. Vikram Prakash, PW9 is Sunil Verma, LDC, Building Department, MCD. On behalf of defendant, defendant Col. M. L. Chandan has appeared in the witness box as DW1.
24. I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the record including the written submissions filed on behalf of defendant. My findings of each of the issues are follows: Issue no. 3:
(Whether the suit as filed is barred by limitation)
25. This issue is being taken up first as it involves the maintainability of the suit on the question of limitation. Defendant has taken the objection that suit is barred by limitation as it has been filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of settlement of account on 28.03.2005. First of all, it be noted that plaintiff is seeking relief of damages on account of CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 19 of 53 alleged breaches of property development agreement dated 16.01.2004. Present suit was filed on 05.09.2008. On meaningful reading of the plaint, it would be clear that while plaintiff alleging that different clauses of agreement dated 16.01.2004 were violated. She has alleged that at first instance clause 13 of agreement dated 16.1.2014 was breached as construction of building was not completed within period of nine months from date of handing over of possession on 16.1.2004. Plaintiff, therefore, has claimed Rs. Two lacs for delay of 5 months in completion of construction of building. According to plaintiff, she shifted in building in March 2005. It is also case of plaintiff that it was agreed upon between parties that if there would be delay in construction beyond 12 th month ( 3 months after dead line of 9 months), then in terms of clause 27 of the agreement, she was at liberty to terminate the agreement.
26. So from evidence of PW1 & PW7, as well as agreed terms of agreement Ex. PW1/1, agreement even as per plaintiff breached for the first time in January 2005, when construction CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 20 of 53 of building was not completed, as per agreement, despite passage of 3 additional months from end of dead line of 9 months for completion of work. Moreover, if according to plaintiff she moved into new building in March 2005. If she claims damages for delay in completion of construction work, cause of action certainly accrued by January or March 2005.
27. Plaintiff has further alleged that even after moving into building, she found that construction of building was not raised as per specifications in ScheduleB attached to the agreement Ex. PW1/1. It is further allegation of plaintiff that as per clause 32 of agreement, defendant was bound to keep the building in state of good repair, for period of one year of plaintiff moving into building. So defendant was required to make repair work etc. in building, at his cost, for one year after shifting into building. Plaintiff has alleged that she wrote letter on 26.07.2005 to defendant pointing out about seepage in different parts of building and other floors, required to be repaired. So, if according to plaintiff there were other alleged breaches of agreement or building was allegedly not constructed as per CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 21 of 53 specifications or plan annexed with agreement, so cause of action further arose, even after March 2005, same thus accrued lately on 26.7.2005 when plaintiff stated to have sent letter to defendant.
28. It is, however, further case of plaintiff that she received belated reply of defendant by reply dated 31.8.2005 received to plaintiff on 5.9.2005 wherein, according to plaintiff false allegations of lame excuses were taken by defendant. Now reading the evidence for the purpose of issue of limitation, I find that in case of alleged breach of terms of contact, if in series of succeeding events, enumerated to allege different breaches of terms of agreement, cause of action for claiming damages or compensation for such breach of contract would accrue when the first violation of terms of agreement accrued. Even if cause of action for claiming damages etc. have allegedly further accrued, but to my mind, limitation period of 3 years have to be reckoned from date of first accrued of cause of action. It is not continuous cause of action rather different cause of action accrued because agreement Ex. PW1/1 was CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 22 of 53 alleged to have been violated in succeeding series of events and therefore damages under different heads have been claimed. But fact remains, once the limitation period started, based on cause of action of one of the alleged breach of terms of agreement then limitation period will continue, from that date, even if there are subsequent alleged breaches of terms of agreement, noted by plaintiff.
29. Limitation starts from accrued of first cause of action and therefore cannot taken or presumed to have started from accrued of last cause of action, in case of succeeding breaches of agreement. If there is maximum period of three year of limitation prescribed in law, such period would start from date of accrued of first cause of action to file suit for damages and not from accrued of last date of cause of action in case succeeding sequence of events, different terms of agreement were allegedly breached. In present case, even according to plaintiff she wrote letter on 26.7.2005 to defendant, complaining therein about seepage and repair work etc. required to be done. Then limitation would at the most for CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 23 of 53 filing suit for damages start from date of letter of plaintiff and not from the date of reply. In this case though reply was given by defendant though as per plaintiff it was belated reply. If defendant would not have given reply, this would not mean that limitation period, could be assumed to have started as per convenience of plaintiff. I feel law of limitation cannot be twisted according to convenience of either party to suit.
30. Another important aspect required to be noted here is that plaintiff/PW1 has admitted in her cross examination that their accounts were settled on 28.3.2005 and at that time defendant gave her Rs. 50,000/ only. If accounts were settled on 28.3.2005 and according to plaintiff, defendant has not given, complete amount, then also cause of action accrued to file suit for damages on basis of alleged breach of terms of agreement.
31. Article 55 of Limitation Act provides for filing of the suit for compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied. According to this Article the period of limitation is 3 CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 24 of 53 years. This Article further says that when the contract is broken or where there are successive breaches, then the breach in respect of which suit is instituted occurs. Under these circumstances, the above Article applies to the present case and as per the same, the period of limitation for compensation for breach of contract is 3 years from the date when the contract is broken or where there are successive breaches. Thus starting point of limitation under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is from the date of breach even where the loss cannot be quantified till some time after the breach. (Delta Foundations & Othr. Vs Kerala State Construction AIR 2003 Ker 201) Therefore in facts of present case I find that suit of plaintiff is not within limitation, issue therefore decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
Issue no. 4:
(whether the suit has not been properly verified, if so its effect?)
32. This issue was also framed on the objection taken on behalf of the defendant to the effect that plaint has not been properly verified as required under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. Perusal of the plaint would show that in the verification clause CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 25 of 53 attached to plaint, it is simply mention that contents of the plaint are true and correct and nothing has been concealed. The requirement of the law, in this regard however is different. As per order 6 Rule 15 of CPC, the plaintiff is required to verity by giving reference of different paras of pleadings, which are based on knowledge of plaintiff and to be correct and true and other pars which are based on the information received and believed to be correct. However apparently the plaint has not been verified as per Rule 15 of Order 6 CPC. Consequently, I find the plaint is not with proper verification clause, consequently, this issue stand decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no. 6:
(Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?)
33. Defendant has taken the objection in the WS that suit is bad for non joinder of owner of the first floor of property in question. Whereas if we read the plaint as a whole, it would be clear that the plaintiff is seeking the relief of damages etc. regarding different breaches of clauses of property development CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 26 of 53 agreement dated 16.01.2004. Agreement was between husband of the plaintiff and defendant, in such situation when no relief has been sought qua occupier/owner of the first floor of the property in question, then such owner is neither necessary nor proper party to the present suit. Issue therefore stand decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff. Issue no. 5:
(Whether the suit suffers from defect of deficiency of court fee, if so its effect?)
34. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of total amount of Rs. 18,68,347/ along with the interest on account of damages for alleged violation of different clauses of property development agreement, as per the break up of different claims given in tabulated form in para no. 29 of the plaint. Plaintiff has furnished total court fee of Rs. 20,600/. Which as per the table attached with the Court fee Act is correct. Consequently, the issue stand decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 1:
CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 27 of 53
(Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount of Rs. 18,68,347/? )
35. Onus to prove this issue is on plaintiff. Let us now examine the evidence lead on behalf of plaintiff to ascertain whether the plaintiff has been able to establish her case. The fact that plaintiff's husband Late Sh. Nanak Chand Mehta is owner of Plot No. A228, Defence Colony, Measuring 217 Sq. Yds., is not disputed. This fact is also not disputed that Late Sh. Nanak Chand Mehta after getting the property into free hold got conveyance deed executed in his favour on 18.09.2000. It is also not disputed that during his lifetime, husband of the plaintiff entered into property development agreement with defendant on 16.01.2004. It is also not disputed that under said agreement entire structure of property in question was to be demolished and thereafter new building comprise of Ground, First and Second Floor along with servant quarters and bathroom/toilet on the terrace were agreed to be constructed as per the agreed plan and specification. It is also not disputed that under the said agreement, parties agreed that ownership of Ground and Second Floor along with terrace with 70% of CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 28 of 53 land underneath the structure would be of husband of the plaintiff and First Floor of the property of 30 % of indivisible share in the land would be with defendant. It is also not disputed that after the death of Late Sh. N. C. Mehta, plaintiff succeeded his estate by virtue of registered will dated 26.11.2001 as well as relinquishment deed dated 18.09.2007 in her favour.
36. Let us now considered those facts which are disputed. In the entire plaint, plaintiff has alleged different violation of property development agreement. Therefore, plaintiff has claimed damages under different heads. The first of alleged violation of agreement dated 16.01.2004 is that as per clause 13 of agreement dated 16.01.2004, the process of demolition and construction of new building as per agreement was to be completed within period of 9 months from the date of agreement. Since, it was stipulated that the time being essence of an agreement, in case of delay in completion of building, defendant would be liable to pay Rs. 25,000/ for 10 and 11 month (Starting from 9 months stipulated from construction) CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 29 of 53 and Rs. 50,000/ for 12 months and if there being delay in completion of construction beyond 12th months, owner would be entitled to terminate the agreement as per clause 27 of agreement.
37. Defendant though has not disputed clause no.13 of agreement, however has taken the plea that the delay in completion is not attributable to him, it is stated that Late N. C. Mehta had already obtained the sanction from MCD on 23.05.2003 and agreement was executed on 16.01.2004. It is also the case of the defendant the additional constructions was got made at the instructions of Late N. C. Mehta during his lifetime and after him, plaintiff and her son. Moreover, plaintiff did not terminate the agreement and rather shifted into the premises which clearly show that delay was not due to fault on defendant. Defendant has also pleaded that even accounts were duly settled on 28.03.2005 and that time no issue was raised regarding delay in completion of construction work.
38. Let us now examine evidence as come on record. PW1 CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 30 of 53 has testified about this stipulation in para no. 10 of her affidavit, similarly PW7 has also testified the similar facts in his affidavit ( para no. 10). In cross examination PW1/plaintiff admits that her husband had got the sanctioned plan for construction from MCD, prior to entering into property development agreement. PW1 further admits that accounts were settled with defendant on 28.03.2005. Though PW1 stated that at that time the defendant had given her Rs. 50,000/ only. It is also not disputed that after completion of construction work, plaintiff moved into the building, according to plaintiff, she moved into the building in March, 2005 whereas according to defendant, plaintiff took the possession of new building in January, 2005. It has also come in cross examination of PW1 that the constructions work were started during the lifetime of her husband. PW7 has also admitted in his cross examination that on 15.05.2004 when his father has died, the stage of the constructions was approximately completed structure. He further admitted in his cross examination that proposed building plan for constructions also contained additional construction from what contained in CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 31 of 53 sanctioned plan. PW7 was also admitted that additional construction was got regularized subsequently in year 2008. This witness further admitted that the construction was done to the extent of 99.9% in accordance with proposed plans annexed with property development agreement Ex. PW1/1.
39. Considering the such evidence as come on the record along with the agreement dated 16.01.2004 which is also annexed with the specification, sanction plan and sanction building plan, it is clear that construction actually carried out at the site was not strictly as per sanctioned plan. There was additional constructions carried out at the site. What are the consequences for carrying out such additional constructions is a separate aspect. But facts remains there was additional constructions raised at the site, same was never objected to either by husband of the plaintiff during his lifetime, or by plaintiff and her son at any point of time. It is also admitted fact that after completion of construction work at the site, plaintiff moved into the new building without raising any objection regarding delay in completion of constructions work. CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 32 of 53 Whereas it was stipulated between the parties under the agreement Ex. PW1/1 clause 35, to the effect that in case of any dispute in connection with or arising out of the agreement or on account of any breach of agreement, parties shall attempt to resolve, within period of 15 days, upon receipt of notice given to the other side regarding existence of any such dispute, by mutual discussion. Admittedly, no written notice was given by plaintiff as per above mentioned clause 35 to defendant regarding delay in completion of constructions work. In such situation, once all the parties were aware that construction was not strictly done in accordance with sanctioned building plan, it is also to be ascertained if any damages have been actually caused to plaintiff or not.
40 Mere filing of suit for damages perse does not make plaintiff entitled for the same. Plaintiff needs to establish firstly a breach of contract and secondly consequent damages. Consequences for breach of the contract are provided in Chapter VI of the Contract Act which contains three sections, namely, section 73 to section 75. As per Section 73 of the CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 33 of 53 Contract Act, the party who suffers by the breach of contract is entitled to receive from the defaulting party, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him by such breach, which naturally arose in usual course of things from such breach, or which the two parties knew when they make the contract to be likely the result of the breach of contract. This provision makes it clear that such compensation is not to be given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
41 The underlying principle enshrined in this section is that a mere breach of contract by a defaulting party would not entitle other side to claim damages unless said party has in fact suffered damages because of such breach. Loss or damage which is actually suffered as a result of breach has to be proved and the plaintiff is to be compensated to the extent of actual loss or damage suffered. When there is a breach of contract, the party who commits the breach does not at the instant incur any pecuniary obligation, nor does the party complaining of the breach becomes entitled to a debt due from the other party. The only right which the party aggrieved by the breach of the CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 34 of 53 contract has is the right to sue for damages.
42 No pecuniary liability thus arises till the Court has determined that the party complaining of the breach is entitled to damages. Therefore Court of Law in the first place has to decide that the defendant is liable and then it should proceed to assess what the liability is. But, till that determination, there is no liability at all upon the defendant. Courts will give damages for breach of contract only by way of compensation for loss suffered and not by way of punishment. The rule thus applicable for determining the amount of damages for the breach of contract to perform a specified work is that the damages are to be assessed at the pecuniary amount of difference between the state of the plaintiff upon the breach of the contract and what it would have been if the contract had been performed and not the sum which it would cost to perform the contract, though in particular cases the result of either mode of calculation may be the same.
43 The measure of compensation depends upon the CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 35 of 53 circumstances of the case. The complained loss or claimed damage must be fairly attributed to the breach as a natural result or consequence of the same. The loss must be a real loss or actual damage and not merely a probable or a possible one. When it is not possible to calculate accurately or in a reasonable manner, the actual amount of loss incurred or when the plaintiff has not been able to prove the actual loss suffered, he will be, all the same, entitled to recover nominal damages for breach of contract. Where nominal damages only are to be awarded, the extent of the same should be estimated with reference to the facts and circumstances involved. The general principle to be borne in mind is that the injured party may be put in the same position as that he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong.
44 In Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas and Anr., AIR 1962 SC 366, the Supreme Court highlighted two principles which follow from the reading of Section 73 of the Contract Act. The first principle on which damages in cases of breach of contract are calculated is that, as far as possible, he CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 36 of 53 who has proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he contracted to get is to be placed, as far as money can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed; but this principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach and debars him from claiming any part of the damages which is due to his neglect to take such steps.
45 Thus, while on one hand, damages as a result of breach are to be proved to claim the same from the person who has broken the contract and actual loss suffered can be claimed, on the other hand, Section 74 of the Act entitles a party to claim reasonable compensation from the party who has broken the contract which compensation can be predetermined compensation stipulated at the time of entering into the contract itself. Thus, this section provides for preestimate of the damage or loss which a party is likely to suffer if the other party breaks the contract entered into between the two of them. If the sum named in the contract is found to be reasonable CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 37 of 53 compensation, the party is entitled to receive that sum from the party who has broken the contract. Interpreting this provision, Superior Courts have held that such liquidated damages must be the result of a "genuine preestimate of damages". This section, therefore, merely dispenses with proof of "actual loss or damage". However, it does not justify the award of compensation when in consequence of breach, no legal injury at all has resulted, because compensation for breach of contract can be awarded to make good loss or damage which naturally arose in the usual course of things, or which the parties knew when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach.
46 The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265, expounded this very principle in the following words:
"9......The claim is admittedly one for damages for breach of the contract between the parties. Now, it is true that the damages which are claimed are liquidated damages under Clause 14, but so far as the law in India is concerned, there is no qualitative difference in the nature of the CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 38 of 53 claim whether it be for liquidated damages or for unliquidated damages. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act eliminates the somewhat elaborate refinements made under the English common law in distinguishing between stipulations providing for payment of liquidated damages and stipulations in the nature of penalty. Under the common law a genuine preestimate of damages by mutual agreement is regarded as a stipulation naming liquidated damages and binding between the parties : a stipulation in a contract in terrorem is a penalty and the Court refuses to enforce it, awarding to aggrieved party only reasonable compensation. The Indian Legislature has sought to cut across the web of rules and presumptions under the English common law, by enacting a uniform principle applicable to all stipulations naming amounts to be paid in case of breach, and stipulations by way of penalty, and according to this principle, even if there is a stipulation by way of liquidated damages, a party complaining of breach of contract can recover only reasonable compensation for the injury sustained by him, the stipulated amount being merely the outside limit. It, therefore makes no difference in the present case that the claim of the appellant is for liquidated damages. It stands on the same CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 39 of 53 footing as a claim for unliquidated damages. Now the law is well settled that a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages assessed by a decree or order of a Court or other adjudicatory authority. When there is a breach of contract, the party who commits the breach does not eo instanti incur any pecuniary obligation, nor does the party complaining of the breach becomes entitled to a debt due From the other party. The only right which the party aggrieved by the breach of the contract has is the right to sue for damages. That is not an actionable claim and this position is made amply clear by the amendment in Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides that a mere right to sue for damages cannot be transferred.
47 Thus one can say that a person who commits a breach of the contract does not by itself incurs any pecuniary liability, nor would it be true to say that the other party to the contract who complains of the breach has become entitled to any amount due to him from the other party. Only right which he has is the right to go to a Court of law and recover damages. Now, damages are the compensation which a Court of law gives to a CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 40 of 53 party for the injury which he has sustained. But, and this is most important to note, he does not get damages or compensation by reason of any existing obligation on the part of the person who has committed the breach. He gets compensation as a result of the fiat of the Court. Therefore, no pecuniary liability arises till the Court has determined that the party complaining of the breach is entitled to damages.
Therefore, when damages are assessed, it would not be true to say that what the Court is doing is ascertaining a pecuniary liability which already existed. The Court in the first place must decide that the defendant is liable and then it proceeds to assess what that liability is. But till that determination there is no liability at all upon the defendant.
48 The Supreme Court in the matter of ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629, has discussed provisions of Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act and held as under:
"Under Section 73, when a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss caused to him which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it.CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 41 of 53
This Section is to be read with Section 74, which deals with penalty stipulated in the contract, inter alia [relevant for the present case] provides that when a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, the party complaining of breach is entitled, whether or not actual loss is proved to have been caused, thereby to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named. Section 74 emphasizes that in case of breach of contract, the party complaining of the breach is entitled to receive reasonable compensation whether or not actual loss is proved to have been caused by such breach. therefore, the emphasis is on reasonable compensation. If the compensation named in the contract is by way of penalty, consideration would be different and the party is only entitled to reasonable compensation for the loss suffered. But if the compensation named in the contract for such breach is genuine preestimate of loss which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it, there is no question of proving such loss or such party is not required to lead evidence to prove actual loss suffered by him. Burden is on the other party to lead evidence for proving that no loss is CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 42 of 53 likely to occur by such breach..."
49 What follows from the above is that even if there is a clause of liquidated damages, in a given case, it is for the Court to determine as to whether it represents genuine preestimate of damages. In that eventuality, this provision only dispenses with the proof of "actual loss or damage". However, the person claiming the liquidated damages is still to prove that the legal injury resulted because of breach and he suffered some loss. In the process, he may also be called upon to show that he took all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss. It is only after proper enquiry into these aspects that the Court in a given case would rule as to whether liquidated damages as prescribed in the contract are to be awarded or not. Even if there is a stipulation by way of liquidated damages, a party complaining of breach of contract can recover only reasonable compensation for the injury sustained by him and what is stipulated in the contract is the outer limit beyond which he cannot claim. Unless this kind of determination is done by the Court, it does not result into "debt". (Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. vs Procall Private Limited MANU/DE/4958/2012).
CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 43 of 53
50. Thus from the above discussion, it is clear that plaintiff has twin responsibility to establish breach of agreement and also to establish consequent damages. Once it has already come on record and rather admitted by plaintiff PW1 as well as PW 7 that construction of the building was not strictly as per sanction plan approved by the MCD, still plaintiff accepted the same and she shifted into new building without any opposition/complaint. In such circumstances defendants cannot be attributed to any delay in completion of construction and therefore, defendant cannot be made liable for damages in terms of clause 13 of the agreement dated 16.1.2004. 51 If we proceed ahead to examine other claims of the plaintiff, PW1 Savita Mehta has testified in para 11 onwards of her affidavit of examination in chief that defendant failed to construct the building as per specification attached with the agreement. PW1 says that in March 2005 when she moved into the building, she found that defendant had left certain areas of building unfinished giving promise to finish the same at later CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 44 of 53 date. PW1 further testified that type of material used for construction of building was not as per the specification Schedule B annexed with the agreement. PW1 says that it was understood amongst the parties that if the actual material used, would be costlier than the contacted material, in that case plaintiff to reimburse the defendant and in case actual material used is cheaper than the contacted material, in that situation defendant would be liable to reimburse the amount of difference between the cost of material actually used than ought to have been used. PW1 further says that on detailed examination pointed out the different omission in detailed statement given to the representative of the defendant regarding which defendant odd a sum of Rs. 28,907/ on this account. PW1 says that defendant is liable to reimburse that amount to her. Similar is the evidence of PW7 Arvind Arvind Mehta on this aspect.
52. Now if we examined this aspect/claim of the plaintiff, PW 1 has admitted in cross examination that her husband during his life time never raised any objection regarding material etc. CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 45 of 53 used in the construction. PW1 further admits that she had also visited twice/thrice in the property in question before taking possession. Witness also says that she had chosen material like tiles, lights, flooring and kitchen material etc. 53 Similarly, PW7, have also stated in his crossexamination that he selected tiles for the floors , walls and the lights as well as ceiling fans. Witness has further stated that he had got wooden flooring done in one room as well as glass work for window, of his choice. PW7 has further stated that construction was done to the extent of 99.9% in accordance with proposed plan annexed with agreement Ex.PW1/1. Thus, from such testimony of PW1 and PW7, it is clear that there is no specific evidence as to which are those areas of the building , where construction was left unfinished. Moreover, no specific evidence has come on the record to establish that any inferior quality of material was used as against any other material already selected under the agreement. If it is coming in the cross examination of PW1 and PW7, that to a large extent they had selected material of their own choice, in such situation making a CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 46 of 53 bald allegation of inferior quality of material or unfinished construction work, would not be sufficient for claiming damages.
54 In this context, it is fruitful to refer to the Judgment of Bhopal High Court in "Ghasi Ram vs. Municipal Board, Bhopal" AIR 1956 Bhopal 65, as relied upon by the counsel for the defendant, wherein it has held that two important principles governing the grant of damages are that the claimant should not himself be guilty of any negligence and should have taken all the reasonable steps to minimize the laws to be suffered and that the amount of damages to be awarded can never exceed the loss actually suffered by him or likely to suffer, provided that his acts are lawful and not contrary to rules or by laws duly enacted.
55 In the present case also , I find that though plaintiff has on one hand alleged that inferior quality of material was used or that some of the portion of the building left unfinished , regarding which defendant allegedly gave assurance for CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 47 of 53 completing the construction later. If that was the situation even at the stage when plaintiff moved into the building, plaintiff could have raised the issue of unfinished construction as well as inferior quality of construction at that stage only, but at that stage, without raising any protest , plaintiff shifted into the new building and at very later stage certain allegations are being levelled without being substantiated. Here it is also important to note that plaintiff in her crossexamination has further admitted that accounts under the agreement Ex.PW1/1 were duly settled on 28.03.05. witness has further stated that by that time, defendant had given to her Rs.50,000/. Even by that stage, plaintiff has not raised any issue/ objection regarding any inferior quality of construction or unfinished construction.
56. As I have noted above, that damages are to be awarded not to enrich the aggrieved. Rather, damages are awarded to ensure that person aggrieved is to be placed on the same condition in which he was, but for breach of agreement committed by the other side. Therefore, sin qua none for establishing case for claiming damages is to establish loss and CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 48 of 53 injury consequent upon breach of agreement. Mere alleging breach without proof of loss / damages would not establish a case for awarding monetary damages.
57 It has further come in the evidence of PW1, that as per clause 32 of agreement defendant was liable to keep building in state of good repair for period of one year from the day she moved into the said building. PW1 says that building needed repair or reconstruction, however, defendant allegedly stopped attending to her request for such repair etc. just three months after her starting living in the new building. PW1 says that she wrote a letter dt 26.07.05 to defendant pointing out that there had been seepage in various parts of the building and number of flaws and repairs, needed to be attended to. PW1 says that instead of completing the repair work , defendant sent a belated reply on 31.08.05 making calls and reckless allegations. Again, such aspect of plaintiff's case, if examined carefully , it would be clear that such allegations are more vague and without any specific evidence. PW1 in her cross examination has admitted that she had not incurred any CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 49 of 53 expenditure for repair of ground floor from March 2005 to December 2009. If according to her she has not spent even a single penny towards the repair in the building, it is hard to understand as to how there is any evidence of alleged seepage or repair work required to be attended to and was not so done by defendant. Thus, I find that even on this aspect , plaintiff has failed to establish any actual damage or non compliance of any terms of agreement by defendant.
58 Another claim of damages of the plaintiff is that since defendant had refused to take up repair work and defendant continued his construction work at the first floor of the building and main staircase as well as front courtyard, therefore, plaintiff could not derive rental income as she was not able to let out the second floor of the building. PW1 further says that because of initial delay of five months in completion of construction and thereafter additional four months were lost in completing the repair work, till the month of August 2005 when second floor was let out to a tenant. As such there was additional loss of four months. Thus, plaintiff says that she was CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 50 of 53 deprived from her possible rental income from Nov. 2004 to July 2005. On account of such loss also, plaintiff has claimed damages. On this aspect, first of all, it is required to be noted that plaintiff admittedly shifted into new building in March 2005. Plaintiff admittedly settled the accounts with defendant on 28.03.2005. By that stage, nowhere it was pointed out on behalf of plaintiff that she is facing difficulty in letting out the second floor of the property on account of unfinished work allegedly left by defendant. In crossexamination of PW7 it has already come that construction work was complete and no repair work etc. was gong on the first floor of the property. Thus, I find that even this aspect of the plaintiff's case remained unsubstantiated.
59 In support of her claim plaintiff has also examined, PW4 Sh. S.K.Singh who is Architect by profession and who has given his report Ex.PW1/6. This report is with regard to repair / faulty or unfinished work in the premises in question and also mention the estimate of expenditure for such repair work. Report of this witness , however, is of no relevance firstly CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 51 of 53 because this witness in crossexamination admits that he visited the property in question for the first time in July/August 2008. This witness further admits that he was not aware as to since when plaintiff has been residing in that building prior thereto. This witness further admits that he had not carried out any construction in the property. He also admits that he was not given any bills/ documents by plaintiff for the purpose of preparing report Ex.PW1/6. He also admits expenditure / estimate prepared by him in his report are based on rates prevalent in year 2008. Thus, when plaintiff had admittedly shifted into the building in March 2005 and has been staying in it for about three years , it is hard to understand as to how this architect could have been given any estimate of damages or repair work regarding alleged damages/ unfinished work in the building. Thus, I find that such witness has also not establish the case of the plaintiff.
60 Thus, for the reasons stated above, I find that plaintiff has failed to establish any case for claim of damages under any head. Issue accordingly stands decided against the plaintiff and CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 52 of 53 in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2 (Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if so, at what rate and for which period?) 61 In view of my findings on issue no. 1 , plaintiff is not entitled for any amount of interest.
RELIEF 62 In view of my findings on Issue no. 1, 2 and 3, suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Decree of dismissal be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.09.2016 (SHAILENDER MALIK) ADJ16 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:
DELHI CS NO. 167/16 Savita Mehta V. Chandan & Chandan Ent. Page 53 of 53