Bangalore District Court
Mr. Raja Jayashankar S/O Late vs M/S. Maxwell Industries on 24 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY( CCH.No.3)
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2016
Present: Dr. A.GURUMURTHY, Ph.D
XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
O.S.No. 483/2002
Plaintiff: Mr. Raja Jayashankar S/o late
Mr. Raja Srikantaiah Shetty,
aged about 65 years, residing at
"Raja Galaxy", No.124, 3rd Main
Road, 3rd Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bangalore-560078.
(By Sri.H.S.H, Advocate)
// VS //
Defendants: 1. M/s. Maxwell Industries
Limited, registered office at : C-
6, Road No.22, M.I.D.C, Andheri
(E), Mumbai-400093.
Represented by its Managing
Director.
Bangalore office at : No.196, 4th
'C' Main Road, 3rd Block, 3rd
Stage, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
2. My Home Super Market (A
Division of M/s. Maxwell
Industries Limited), No.196, 4th
'C' Main Road, 3rd Block, 3rd
Stage, Basaveshwaranagar,
2 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
Bangalore-560 079.
Represented by its General
Manager.
(by Sri.H.S.D, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the 19/01/2002
suit:
Nature of the Suit (suit for Suit for ejectment
pronote, Suit for
declaration and
possession, Suit for
injunction, etc.):
Date of the
commencement of 17/8/2007
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the
Judgment was 24/3/2016
pronounced:
Total duration: Year/s Month/ Day/s
14 02 05
O.S.No.6375/2004
Plaintiffs: 1. M/s. Maxwell Industries
Limited, registered office at : C-
6, Road No.22, M.I.D.C, Andheri
(E), Mumbai-400093.
Represented by its Managing
Director.
Bangalore office at : No.196, 4th
'C' Main Road, 3rd Block, 3rd
Stage, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
2. My Home Super Market (A
3 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
Division of M/s. Maxwell
Industries Limited), No.196, 4th
'C' Main Road, 3rd Block, 3rd
Stage, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-560 079.
Represented by its General
Manager.
(by Sri.A.S.A, Advocate)
// VS //
Defendant: Mr. Raja Jayashankar S/o late
Mr. Raja Srikantaiah Shetty,
aged about 65 years, residing at
"Raja Galaxy", No.124, 3rd Main
Road, 3rd Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bangalore-560078.
(By Sri.H.S.H, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the 25/08/2004
suit:
Nature of the Suit (suit for Money suit
pronote, Suit for
declaration and
possession, Suit for
injunction, etc.):
Date of the
commencement of 17/8/2007
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the
Judgment was 24/3/2016
pronounced:
Total duration: Year/s Month/ Day/s
11 07 00
4 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
COMMON JUDGMENT
On 20/11/2006 OS No.6375/2004 has been clubbed with
OS No.483/2002 with retrospective effect and it has been
mentioned that whatever evidence let in, prior to clubbing of cases
will holds good and directed the parties to lead common evidence in
OS No.483/2002.
OS No.483/2002:
PLEADINGS IN BRIEF
2. Plaintiff has filed this suit to direct the defendants to quit and
deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the
plaintiff and to further direct the defendants to pay sum of
Rs.5,46,344/- to the plaintiff, which includes arrears of rents,
maintenance charges and fixed additional charges (electricity) and
to pay mesne profits @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date of
suit till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the
schedule premises to the plaintiff and to pass an order to enquire
about the mesne profits and to direct the defendants to share the
electric consumption charges and to pay maintenance charges @
Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of handing
5 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff
with cost and interest @ 18% per annum.
It is pleaded that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
commercial building i.e "Raja Galaxy" bearing No.124, 100 feet
road, 9th Block, Jayanagar.
1st defendant is the company and 2nd defendant is the branch
of 1st defendant. It is pleaded that defendants are lessees under
the plaintiffs and they took the schedule premises on lease, under a
lease agreement dated 22/5/2000 on a monthly rent of
Rs.67,000/- per month. Defendants took the schedule premises on
lease to run a departmental store. At the time of taking the
schedule premises on lease, defendants have paid interest free
security deposit of Rs.8,04,000/- to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has
agreed to refund the security deposit to the defendants, at the time
of handing over the vacant possession of the schedule premises,
subject to deduction of arrears of rent, maintenance charges or any
other charges due to the plaintiff. The tenancy between the parties
was a monthly tenancy, commences on first of every month and
ends on the last day of the month. Tenancy commenced on
1/7/2000. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has delivered the
vacant possession of the schedule premises to the defendants in
6 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
the month of May 2000, to enable the defendants to do fitting and
furniture work. Defendants have agreed to pay the rent to the
plaintiff from 1/7/2000 onwards, though they took the possession
much earlier to 1/7/2000. Defendants have commenced the
business in the schedule premises on 1/7/2000 and they have not
paid rent to the plaintiff from 1/7/2000 till 15/9/2000. As such,
as on 15/9/2000 defendants were in due of Rs.1,67,500/- towards
arrears of rent. Defendants have with held the rents from
1/7/2000 till 15/9/2000 on the ground that plaintiff has not
provided 40 KVA electricity connection to the schedule premises. It
is alleged that defendants took the possession of the schedule
premises in the month of May 2000 and they were in possession of
the same till the commencement of tenancy on 1/7/2000, without
rents. Defendants have installed a generator and started doing
business in the schedule premises from 1/7/2000 by utilizing the
generator. The expenses incurred by the defendants to maintain
the generator was almost equal to the electricity consumption
charges. Plaintiff has requested the defendants to pay arrears of
rents for the period from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000 and also issued a
legal notices to defendants on 16/12/2000, calling upon them to
7 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
pay arrears of rents, for which, defendants have given untenable
reply and not paid the arrears of rents.
Thereafter, plaintiff has issued a legal notices to defendants,
once again, on 14/2/2001 calling upon the defendants to pay the
arrears of rents amounting to Rs.1,67,500/- with interest @ 18%
per annum, for which defendants have given untenable reply on
3/3/2001. In the meanwhile, plaintiff has also requested the
defendants for amicable settlement, but defendants have not
agreed for the same. At the time of entering into the lease
agreement, defendants have agreed to share electricity charges and
fixed additional charges of Rs.180/- per KVA for 40 KVA. Plaintiff
has installed separate electric meter, to record the consumption
charges of the defendants. By oversight plaintiff has collected fixed
demand charges @ 180 per KVA from the defendants for only 30
KVA. Instead of collecting fixed demand charges for 40 KVA i.e. for
the period from15/9/2000 to 31/7/2001. Plaintiff has realized the
same subsequently. Soon after realizing the mistake, plaintiff has
requested the defendants to pay the differential fixed additional
charges of Rs.18,900/- i.e. towards 10 KVA, which has been
provided to the defendants. Inspite of repeated demands,
defendants have not paid the differential fixed additional charges
8 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
arrears of Rs.18,900/- and they continued to pay fixed additional
charges only for 30 KVA @ Rs.180 per KVA.
It is further pleaded that defendants have not paid
maintenance charges @ Rs.2,000/- per month from 1/7/2000 to
31/3/2001, amounting to Rs.18,000/- and enhanced maintenance
charges of Rs.3,000/- per month from 1/4/2001 to 31/12/2001,
amounting to Rs.27,000/-. Defendants were in total due of
Rs.45,000/- towards arrears of maintenance charges. In all,
defendants were in due of Rs.2,40,400/-, which includes arrears of
rents, maintenance charges and deficit fixed additional charges.
In that regard, plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the
defendants on 18/8/2001 and intimated about the termination of
tenancy and called upon them to quit, vacate and deliver the
vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiffs on or
before 31/10/2001 and to pay the balance amount. For which,
defendants have given untenable reply on 7/9/2001. Thereafter,
defendants have demanded the plaintiff to refund the security
deposit amount of Rs.8,04,000/- as a precondition to vacate the
premises. In that connection, plaintiff has issued a legal notice on
28/10/2001, calling upon the defendants to handover the vacant
possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiffs and to pay the
9 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
arrears of rents and other balances and it is clarified that plaintiff
is willing to refund the balance security deposits to the defendants,
after deducting arrears of rent, arrears of maintenance charges and
differential fixed additional charges of the KPTCL. Despite,
termination of tenancy, defendants have failed to deliver the vacant
possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff and even not
paid arrears of rent from October 2001 onwards @ 67,000/- per
month. Thereby, defendants became due of Rs.3,07,400/- towards
arrears of rents, apart from arrears of maintenance and deficit fixed
additional charges. As on the date of filing the suit, defendants
were in due of Rs.2,06,444/- which includes arrears of rents for the
period from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000 and interest @ 18% per
annum + rent of Rs.67,000/- for the month of October 2001. Apart
from it, defendants have not paid rent for the month of November
and December 2001 @ Rs.1,00,000/-, it comes to Rs.
Rs.2,00,000/-. In all, defendants were in due of Rs.5,43,624/- to
the plaintiff and it carries interest @ 18% per annum. Plaintiff has
informed to the defendants that he is ready to refund the security
deposit amount, after deducting arrears of rents and other dues,
but defendants were not agreed for the same. As such, as on the
date of filing the suit, defendants were in due of Rs.13,50,324/-
10 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
including upto date arrears of rents, payment due to the KPTCL,
maintenance charges and interest on the due amount. Hence this
suit to recover the suit claim.
3. Defendants have filed written statement and they have not
traversed averments made in paras 1 to 4 of the plaint. On the
ground that averments made in those four paragraphs are
narration of facts. Defendants have admitted averments made in
para 5 of the plaint, in part. It is denied that defendants have
agreed to receive back the security deposit amount without any
interest against the delivery of vacant possession of the schedule
premises, subject to deduction of arrears of rent, maintenance
charges or any other incidental charges, which are payable to the
plaintiff.
It is contended that defendants have not agreed to pay the
maintenance charges, as alleged in the plaint. It is alleged that
plaintiff has not delivered the useful possession of the schedule
premises to the defendants as per clause 5 of the lease agreement
dated 22/5/2000. In fact, plaintiff has failed to provide 40 KVA
electricity connection to the schedule premises on or before
1/7/2000. As such, defendants are not liable to pay rents to the
11 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
plaintiff from 1/7/2000 till date of providing electricity connection.
It is pleaded that defendants have suffered heavy loss of
goodwill and reputation, due to failure on the part of plaintiff to
provide electricity connection to the schedule premises, as per
clause 5 of the lease agreement. It is true that defendants have
opened the departmental store in the schedule premises on
1/7/2000, but without electricity. As a result, defendants were
unable to open the departmental store in the schedule premises in
the full fledged manner on 1/7/2000. It is further pleaded that
defendants have opened the departmental store in the schedule
premises in some portion of the schedule premises and started
running the business with the aid of generator.
It is further pleaded that defendants were unable to switch on
the freezer and chiller with the power of generator. In fact, it is
difficult to operate the generator for 24 hours to avoid dumpiness
and spoilage of freezer food and dairy products. Defendants are
carrying on the business of freezer food, dairy products and ice
creams, but defendants were unable to do the business of freezer
food, dairy products and ice creams in the schedule premises for
want of electricity. Due to non availability of power supply to the
schedule premises the business of defendants has been adversely
12 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
affected. Consequently, defendants have suffered huge loss and
irreparable damage to their good will and they have approached the
plaintiff and requested him to provide electricity supply, to enable
the defendants to do their business in the schedule premises.
Inspite of it, plaintiff has failed to provide 40 KVA electricity power
connection to the schedule premises before 1/7/2000, as agreed.
In fact, plaintiff has provided electricity supply to the schedule
premises on 15/9/2000. After providing electricity supply to the
schedule premises, defendants have paid rents to the plaintiff as
agreed. It is contended that defendants are not liable to pay rents
to the schedule premises from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000, since
plaintiff has not provided 40 KVA electricity supply to the schedule
premises, as agreed.
It is further denied that defendants have agreed to pay
maintenance charges @ Rs.2,000/- per month from 1/7/2000
onwards. However, it is admitted that plaintiff has terminated the
tenancy and defendants were called upon to hand over the vacant
possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff on or before
31/10/2001. Without returning the security deposit to the
defendants, to enable the defendants to hand over the vacant
possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff on or before
13 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
31/10/2001. In fact, defendants have sent a letter to the plaintiff
on 23/10/2001 and requested the plaintiff to refund the security
deposit amount. For which, plaintiff has given a reply on
28/10/2001 and mentioned that plaintiff will deduct arrears of
rent, arrears of maintenance charges and differential additional
fixed charges (electricity). In fact, defendants were not in due of
either arrears of rents, arrears of maintenance or additional fixed
charges to the plaintiff. However, it was made it clear that
defendants are ready to hand over the vacant possession of the
schedule premises to the plaintiff, subject to return of security
deposit. After receipt of notice, plaintiff instead of returning the
security deposit, he has started insisting defendants to close the
business on or before 31/10/2001. At the instance of plaintiff,
defendants have closed their business in the schedule premises
w.e.f 1/11/2001. It is pleaded that defendants are always ready
and willing to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule
premises to the plaintiff, soon after returning the security deposit.
Lastly, it is reiterated that defendants are not in due of
neither arrears of rents nor arrears of maintenance or additional
fixed charges, etc. It is firmly denied that defendants are liable to
14 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
pay sum of Rs.5,46,344/- to the plaintiff and prayed the court to
dismiss the suit.
4. Based upon pleadings my learned predecessor has framed
following:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that the termination of tenancy is
as per law?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant is due to pay
Rs.5,46,344/-?
3. Whet her plaintiff is entitle to possession?
OS 6375/2004
PLEADINGS IN BRIEF
5. This suit has been filed by M/s. Maxwell Industries Limited
and another (lessees) against Sri. Raja Jayashankar (Lessor),
praying the court to direct the defendant to pay Rs.13,69,724/-
which includes security deposit, cost of assets retained by the
defendant and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20,000/- p.m. with
court costs and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the suit claim,
from the date of suit till the date of realization.
It is pleaded that 1st plaintiff is the company and 2nd plaintiff
is the branch of the 1st plaintiff company and they took ground
15 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
floor of the commercial building (Raja Galaxy) bearing No.125,
situated at 100 feet road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, from the
defendant on lease under lease agreement dated 22.5.2000. At the
time of taking the schedule premises on lease, plaintiffs have paid
interest free security deposit of Rs.8,04,000/- to the defendant. As
per the terms of lease agreement, defendant has to return the
security deposit to the plaintiffs, at the time of handing over the
vacant possession of the schedule premises to the defendant,
subject to deduction of arrears of rents, maintenance charges or
any other incidental charges payable to the defendant. As per the
terms of lease agreement, defendant has to deliver the useful
possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiffs on 30th June
2000. But, defendant has not provided 40 KVA electricity supply to
the schedule premises and not given useful possession of the
schedule premises to the plaintiffs. Thereby, defendant had
committed breach of clause (9) of the lease agreement.
It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have invested huge money
to set up my-home Super Market in the schedule premises.
Plaintiffs have installed 30 KVA Diesel Generator Set and
commenced the business in the schedule premises on 1st July
2000. The power generated from 30 KVA Diesel Generator Set was
16 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
not adequate to run the business in the schedule premises. As
such, plaintiffs have suffered heavy loss and loss of goodwill of the
customers, due to failure on the part of plaintiffs to render full
fledged services to the customers. It is admitted that on
16.12.2000 defendant had issued a legal notice to the plaintiffs,
calling upon the plaintiffs to pay arrears of rents due from 1.7.2000
to 15.9.2000, for which, plaintiffs have given reply on 22.12.2000.
Wherein, it is contended that plaintiffs are not liable to pay any
arrears of rents to the defendant, due to breach of contract
committed by the defendant. It is further admitted that on 14th
February 2001 defendant had issued one more legal notice, calling
upon the plaintiff to pay arrears of rents amounting to
Rs.1,67,5000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum, for which plaintiffs have given suitable reply on 3.3.2001.
Thereafter, plaintiffs have requested the defendant to meet the
representative of the plaintiffs, to resolve the dispute amicably. For
which, defendant has not agreed and came forward for amicable
settlement. On 18/8/2001, once again, defendant had issued one
more legal notice, calling upon the plaintiffs to vacate and to hand
over the vacant possession of the schedule premises on or before
31st October 2001. For which, plaintiffs have given reply on 17th
17 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
October 2001 and agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the
schedule premises to the defendant, subject to the condition that
defendant shall refund the security deposit of Rs.8,04,000/-. After
receipt of legal notice, defendant has not arranged to refund the
security deposit. In turn, defendant has filed a suit against the
plaintiffs before the 15th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS
No.483/2002 for ejectment and other reliefs.
After termination of the lease agreement, defendant has
obstructed the plaintiffs to remove their furniture and fixtures from
the schedule premises on 1/11/2001 with a malafide intention to
take over the assets of plaintiffs and to have wrongful gain. In that
regard, plaintiffs have issued legal notice to the defendant, calling
upon the defendant to return the following assets viz.
Qty. Value(Rs.)
1) 30 KVA DG set with Accoustic Enclosures 1 No. 2,73,000/-
2) Main Glow Sign Bord 2*37 ft. 1 No. 17,060/-
3) Glow Sign Board Café 2*5 ft. 1 No. 4,200/-
4) Air Cutains 3.5 ft. 2 Nos. 23,205/-
5) Fire Extinguisher 2 kg 2 Nos. 4,407/-
6) Fly catchers 2 Nos. 8,632/-
7) Wooden Partitions 4*6 ft. approx. - 28,380/-
8) Electrical fittings with tube lights &
Bus bars. - 2,03,340/-
9) Notice boards 12 Nos. 3,500/-
------------
Total 5,65,724/-
------------
18 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
On 10/5/2002 plaintiffs have return the keys of the schedule
premises to the defendant without prejudice to their right to take
back the assets kept in the schedule premises. Inspite of taking
the vacant possession of the schedule premises, defendant has not
permitted plaintiffs to remove their assets from schedule premises.
In that regard, plaintiffs have lodged a complaint with JP Nagar
Police and issued legal notice to the defendant on 24/2/2002,
calling upon the defendant to refund the security deposit of
Rs.8,04,000/-. Inspite of receipt of legal notice, defendant has not
return the security deposit. Hence this suit for recovery of suit
claim of Rs.13,69,724/- inclusive of upto date interest.
6. Defendant has filed the written statement. Wherein, it is
contended that suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same
is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is alleged that plaintiffs
have filed this suit only to cause harassment to the defendant.
More so, suit is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed.
It is pleaded that defendant is the absolute owner of
commercial building (Raja Galaxy) bearing building No.124,
situated in 100 feet road, 9th block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-82. 2nd
plaintiff is the division of 1st plaintiff company. It is further pleaded
19 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
that plaintiffs are lessees under him in respect of ground floor of
the Raja Galaxy, on monthly rent of Rs.67,000/-. Plaintiffs took
the schedule premises on lease on 22/5/2000 and they have paid
security deposit of Rs.8,04,000/- and the same is refundable at the
time of delivering the vacant possession of the schedule premises to
the defendant subject to deduction of arrears of rents, maintenance
charges or any other charges payable to the defendant. The
tenancy between parties was a monthly tenancy. It is further
pleaded that plaintiffs took the possession of schedule premises in
the month of May 2000, to prepare counters and to fix furnitures in
the schedule premises for their business convenience. At the time
of taking possession of the schedule premises on lease, plaintiffs
have agreed to pay rent from 1st July 2000. Defendant has not
charge any rent for the month of May and June 2000. Plaintiffs
have started doing business in the schedule premises from
1/7/2000 onwards, but they have not paid rents from 1/7/2000
till 15/9/2000. Thereby, plaintiffs became due of arrears if rents
amounting to Rs.1,67,500/- on the ground that defendant has not
provided 40 KVA electricity supply to the schedule premises. In
fact, plaintiffs have took the possession of schedule premises much
earlier to 1/7/2000 and they have commenced their business in
20 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
the schedule premises on 1/7/2000 with the aid of generator, but
they have not paid rent from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000 only on the
ground that defendant has not provided electricity connection to
the schedule premises. Thereafter, defendants were started making
use of the schedule premises. However, defendants have paid rent
to the plaintiff from 16/9/2000 onwards. It is specifically denied
that defendants are liable to pay arrears of rent amounting to
Rs.1,67,500/-, as claimed in the plaint. In fact, defendant has paid
actual electricity consumption charges to the plaintiffs as per the
meter reading. It is contended that defendant has collected
additional fixed charges from the plaintiffs only for 30 KVA, instead
of, collecting additional fixed charges for 40 KVA. As such,
plaintiffs have to pay additional fixed charges of Rs.18,900/- to the
KPTCL. It is further contended that plaintiffs are in due of
Rs.27,900/- to the defendant towards arrears of additional fixed
charges for 10 KVA power supply. It is further contended that
plaintiffs have agreed to pay maintenance charges of Rs.2,000/-
per month from 1/7/2000 to 31/3/2001 and they have not paid
the same. As such, plaintiffs became due of Rs.18,000/-. Plaintiffs
have further agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month
from 1/4/2001 to 31/12/2001 and plaintiffs became due of
21 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
Rs.27,000/- towards arrears of maintenance. In all, plaintiffs were
in due of Rs.5,46,344/- towards arrears of rents, maintenance
charges, differential demand charges and mesne profits i.e. @
Rs.1,00,000/- per month from January 2002 to May 2002 i.e. till
the date of actual delivery of possession to the defendant. On
18/6/2002, defendant has issued notice to the plaintiff, calling
upon the plaintiff to pay sum of Rs.4,24,344/- along with interest
@ 18% per annum. In turn, plaintiffs have issued notice to the
defendant, calling upon the defendant to return the security
deposit amount of Rs.8,04,000/- and they have denied due of
arrears of rents, maintenance charges and additional fixed charges
on the ground that defendant has failed to deliver the useful
possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiffs as per the
agreement dated 22/5/2000. It strongly contended that plaintiffs
have took the possession of the schedule premises in the month of
May 2000 and they have commenced the business in the schedule
premises in the month of June 2000, but they have not paid rents
to the plaintiffs for the period commencing from 1/7/2000 to
15/9/2000 and also for the month of October 2001, November
2001 to May 2002 and interest thereon. It is contended that
defendant is entitle to deduct arrears of rents, arrears of
22 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
maintenance charges and deficit fixed additional charges, etc. from
the advance amount as per the agreement dated 22/5/2000 and
ultimately prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
7. Based upon pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed
the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs are entitle to Rs.13,69,724/- with
interest @ 15% per annum there upon from the defendant?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitle to mesne profit at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of suit from the
defendant as claimed?
3. What order or decree?
8. After framing of issues, plaintiff in OS No.483/2002 has been
examined as PW.1 and one of the witness has been examined as
PW.2 and at their instance 54 documents have been got marked
and closed plaintiff's side evidence. On behalf of defendants in OS
No.483/2002, GPA holder of defendant company has been
examined as DW.1 and one of the Divisional Sales Manager of the
defendant company has been examined as DW.2 and at their
instance 27 documents have been got marked and closed their side
evidence.
23 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
9. Heard arguments.
10. Based upon pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on
record, this court proceed to answer above issues as under:
IN OS No.483/2002
ISSUE No.1 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3 : In the affirmative.
IN OS No.6375/2004
ISSUE No.1 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 : In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. ISSUES No.1 & 2 in OS No.483/2002 & in OS
No.6375/2004 : These four issues are taken together for common
discussion, to avoid repetition and overlapping, since these four
issues are intrinsically interrelated with each other.
On careful scrutiny of pleadings in both suits and common
oral evidence let in both suits in the light of lease agreement dated
22/5/2000 and other supporting documents including number
legal notices issued against each other. Wherein, it is observed
that plaintiff in OS No.483/2002 is the absolute owner of the Raja
24 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
Galaxy Building. It is an admitted fact that defendants in OS
No.483/2002 are tenants under the plaintiff in respect of ground
floor portion of the scheduled building on monthly rent of
Rs.67,000/- PM. It is also an admitted fact that defendants have
paid sum of Rs.8,04,000/- to the plaintiff as interest free security
deposit. It is also an admitted fact that tenancy commences on 1st
of every calendar month and ends in the end of every calendar
month. It is also admitted fact that defendants took the schedule
promises from the plaintiff to run a departmental store. Materials
placed before the court discloses that plaintiff has delivered the
vacant possession of schedule premises to the defendants on
22/5/2000, to enable the defendants to effect necessary fittings
and furniture work inside the premises and he has not charged any
rent till the end of June 2000 and allowed the defendants to make
use of the electricity to do the fitting works in the schedule
premises free of cost without rent. It is an admitted fact that
plaintiff has to deliver the useful possession of the schedule
premises to the defendants on or before 1st July 2000 and that
tenancy commences from 1st July 2000. Evidence on record
discloses that defendants took the possession of schedule premises
much prior to the date of commencement of actual tenancy and
25 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
they were allowed to make use of the premises to effect necessary
fittings in the schedule premises without rent by utilizing the
electricity without incurring electricity consumption charges. It is
regret to note that misunderstandings has cropped up between the
parties from the day one of the commencement of tenancy between
them, for not providing 40 KVA electricity supply to the schedule
premises on or before 1st of July 2000. It is an admitted fact that
defendants have commenced business in the schedule premises
from 1st July 2000 onwards with the aid of generator, installed at
the cost of defendants. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff has
provided 40 KVA electricity supplied to the schedule premises on
15/9/2000. Thereafter, defendants have paid rents to the plaintiff
regularly till August 2001.
It is most important to note that defendants have not paid
rents to the plaintiff for the period commencing from 1st July 2000
to 15th September 2000 on the ground that plaintiff has failed to
provide 40 KVA electricity supply to the schedule premises till
15/9/2000 and not delivered the useful possession of the schedule
premises, as per the terms of lease agreement dated 22/5/2000.
In the meanwhile, plaintiff has issued several legal notices, calling
upon the defendants to pay the arrears of rents for the period
26 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
commencing from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000, amounting to
Rs.1,67,500/-. Inspite of receipt of legal notices, defendants have
not chosen to pay the rents to the plaintiff for the period
commencing from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000.
On careful scrutiny of oral evidence of PW.1 and admission
made by DWs.1 and 2 in the light of recitals made in the lease
agreement dated 22/5/2000, it is ascertained that the LESSOR
(plaintiff) has to pay interest @ 24% per annum and security
deposit amount of Rs.8,04,000/- till he delivers the useful
possession of the schedule premises to the defendants. Admission
made by PW.1 makes it abundantly clear that delivery of useful
possession means and includes delivery of not only the vacant
possession of the schedule premises, but it includes providing
required electricity and water supply. Evidence on record discloses
that plaintiff has not delivered the useful possession of the
schedule premises on 1/7/2000, as per the terms of lease
agreement dated 22/5/2000. However, defendants have
commenced their business in the schedule premises from
1/7/2000. It is indeed relevant to mention that defendants took
the possession of schedule premises much earlier to 1/7/2000 and
they have commenced their business in the schedule premises from
27 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
1/7/2000 onwards. Therefore, defendants are liable to pay the
rents to the plaintiff, as per the terms of lease agreement. In the
instant case, defendants have not paid the rents to the plaintiff as
early for the period commencing from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000. It
is a serious lapse on the part of defendants in withholding the rents
for the period commencing from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000. It is no
doubt true that plaintiff has failed to deliver the useful possession
of the schedule premises on 1/7/2000, as agreed, but it does not
preclude defendants to pay rents to the plaintiffs, since defendants
have started their business in the schedule premises from
1/7/2000 onwards with the aid of generator. The only privilege
available to the defendants under the lease agreement is to claim
interest on the security deposit amount @ 21% per annum from the
date of payment of security deposit till the date of delivery of useful
possession of the schedule premises to the defendants.
Based upon recitals made in the lease agreement dated
22/5/2000, this court is of the opinion that the defendants are
liable to pay the rent to the plaintiff @ 67,000/- per month
1/7/2000 onwards. However, defendants are at liberty to claim
interest on their security deposit amount from the plaintiff @ 24%
per annum from the date of payment of security deposit till
28 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
15/9/2000 i.e. the date on which plaintiff has provided 40 KVA
electricity supplied to the schedule premises. In short, plaintiff has
delivered the useful possession of the schedule premises to the
defendants on 15/9/2000, till that date. Plaintiff is liable to pay
interest @ 24% per annum on the security deposit amount, as per
the penalty clause mentioned at Sl.No.19 of the lease agreement.
The relevant portion of the lease agreement reads as under:
If the possession of the building after completion
of all works along with providing 40 KVA power is
delayed beyond the 30th June 2000 the following
penalty shall be imposed on the LESSOR.
Lesso r shall pay 24% p.a. interest on part/ full
security deposit to the Lessee from the date of signing
of this agreement till the useful possession of the
showroom is given to the Lessee.
Based upon the recitals of the lease agreement dated 22/5/2000
referred supra, there is no need to discuss anything more to come
to a conclusion that defendants are bound to pay rents to the
plaintiff from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000 @ Rs.67,000/- per month,
reserving his right to claim interest on the security deposit amount
@ 24% per annum from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000 i.e. the day on
which plaintiff has provided 40 KVA electricity supply to the
schedule premises. Except claiming interest on the security
deposit amount for the default period i.e. from 1/7/2000 to
29 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
15/9/2000, defendants have no right to withhold the rents merely
on the ground that required electricity has not been provided.
Defendants are liable to pay rents to the plaintiff, since they have
commenced the business in the schedule premises from 1st July
2000 onwards. Defendants could have been postponed the
commencement of business in the schedule premises till the
delivery of useful possession of the schedule premises, to avoid
payment of rents. In the instant case, defendants have not opted to
do so. Therefore, they are liable to pay the rents. View from any
angle, defendants are bound to pay rents to the plaintiff to the
schedule premises from the date of commencement of business in
the schedule premises i.e from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000 amounting
to Rs.1,67,500/- with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from
the date on which payment of rent became due till the date of
payment, as per clause 2 of the Lease Agreement dated 22/5/2000.
The relevant clause reads as under:
"The rent payable by the LESSEE for the schedule
premises shall be sum of Rs.67,000/- (Rupees
Sixty seven thousand only) per month payable by
the 10th of every month, of the month
immediately preceding such payment. Any delay
in payment of rent will attract interest on the
unpaid rent at 21% per annum without prejudice
to the rights of the LESSOR."
30 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
In the instant case, plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per
annum on the arrears of rent of Rs.1,67,500/-, in terms of clause-2
of the lease agreement dated 22/5/2000. Apart from the rent
arrears due by defendants from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000,
defendants have also not paid rents for the month of October 2001
to 24th May 2002, it can be ascertained from the admissions made
by DWs.1 and 2. Evidence placed on record discloses that plaintiff
has terminated the tenancy, by issuing legal notice to the
defendants. In view of termination of tenancy, tenancy came to an
end on 31/10/2001. But, in fact, defendants have handed over the
key of the schedule premises to the plaintiff only on 24/5/2002 for
the reasons best known to the defendants. Admittedly, defendants
have not paid rents from October 2001 to 24ht May 2002.
Materials placed before the court discloses that defendants were in
possession of suit property till 24/5/2002. Therefore, defendants
are liable to pay rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.67,000/- per
month, though plaintiff has claimed rent at the rate of
Rs.1,00,000/- per month. View from any angle defendants are
liable to pay the arrears of rents and interest accrued thereon to
the plaintiff, in terms of lease agreement dated 22/5/2000.
31 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
As far as maintenance charges is concerned, plaintiff in OS
No.483/2002 has contended that defendants are liable to pay
maintenance charges @ Rs.2,000/- per month initially from
1/7/2000 to 31/3/2001(Rs.18,000/-) and maintenance charges of
Rs. 3,000/- per month from 1/4/2001 to 31/12/2001
(Rs.27,000/-). In all arrears of maintenance charges of
Rs.45,000/-. Defendants have stoutly denied the same and they
have contended that defendants were never agreed to pay
maintenance charges to the plaintiff and they are not liable to pay
the maintenance charges to the plaintiff. To ascertain the truth,
this court has verified the lease agreement dated 22/5/2000,
wherein, at clause12.1 i.e. under the sub head maintenance
Lessee is bound to pay the maintenance charges. The relevant
clause reads as under:
"The LESSEE shall pay their share in respect of
ground floor for maintenance of common areas,
common lights, general security and water
charges."
In view of Clause 12.1 of the Lease Agreement dated
22/5/2000 referred supra, there is no need to discuss anything
more to come to a conclusion that defendants are bound to pay the
maintenance charges, as claimed by the plaintiff.
32 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
As far as arrears of additional fixed charges is concerned
plaintiff has claimed arrears of additional fixed charges @ Rs.180/-
per KVA for deficit claim of 10 KVA. It is the case of the plaintiff
that he has provided 40 KVA electricity supply to the schedule
premises, but by oversight he has collected additional fixed charges
@ Rs.180/- per KVA for 30 KVA instead of collecting additional
fixed charges @ Rs.180/- per KVA for 40 KVA. In view of the same,
defendants are liable to pay additional fixed charges @ Rs.180/-
per KVA for remaining 10 KVA (40 KVA - 30 KVA = 10 KVA)
amounting to Rs.27,900/-, the same is due from 15/9/2000 to
31/12/2001. Defendants have denied the same and they
contended that defendants are not in due of any additional fixed
charges, as claimed in the plaint.
Keeping the same in mind, this court has verified the
pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both side parties and
supporting documents and it is ascertained that by oversight
plaintiff has collected additional fixed charges at the rate of
Rs.180/- per KVA for 30 KVA from 15/9/2000 to 31/12/2001,
though he has provided 40 KVA power supply to the schedule
premises. In other words, defendants have paid additional fixed
charges at the rate of RS.180/- per KVA for 30 KVA from
33 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
15/9/2000 to 31/12/2001 and they have not paid additional fixed
charges to the plaintiff @ Rs.180/- per KVA from 15/9/2000 to
31/12/2001 for 40 KVA. Therefore, defendants are liable to pay
additional fixed charges @ Rs.180/- per KVA for the remaining 10
KVA from 15/9/2000 to 31/12/2001, amounting to Rs.27,900/- in
terms of clause-7 of the Lease Agreement dated 22/5/2000.
Last but not least, the burning dispute between the parties is
that whether vacant possession of the schedule premises is to be
delivered to the plaintiff first or security deposit has to be refunded
first to the defendants, before insisting the defendants to deliver the
vacant possession of schedule premises to the plaintiff. It is an
admitted fact that at the time of entering into lease agreement,
defendants have paid security deposit of Rs.8,04,000/- to the
plaintiff. The tenancy between the parties was for 3 years.
Tenancy commenced on 1/7/2000. It is most important and
relevant to note that ego fight has started between the parties, due
to misunderstandings and misconception of terms of lease
agreement and also due to failure on the part of plaintiff to provide
40 KVA electricity to the schedule premises before 1/7/2000, to
enable the defendants to start their departmental store business in
the schedule premises in a more attractive way, to attract the
34 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
customers to purchase food items. Evidence placed on record
discloses that defendants were unable to commence their business
in the schedule premises effectively from 1/7/2000 onwards for
want of electricity supply. It is the case of the defendants that they
have suffered huge loss of reputation and goodwill due to want of
40 KVA electricity supply to the schedule premises on the ground
that defendants were unable to switch on the refrigerators, chillers
and other electrical gadgets, due to want of electricity supply.
However, defendants have managed to run the business in the
schedule premises with the aid of generator. Defendants have
taken a contention that defendants were unable to run the
generator for 24 hours, to supply power to the freezers and to
chillers to preserve and to protect the quality of food items like ice
creams etc. For want of electricity, defendants have suffered huge
loss of reputation and goodwill. On that ground alone defendants
have withheld the rent for the period 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000.
However, 40 KVA electricity has been provided to the schedule
premises on 15/9/2000. Thereafter, defendants have paid rents to
the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.67,000/- per month till September
2001. In the meanwhile, relationship between LESSOR and
LESSEE was strained and there was no cordial relationship
35 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
between them. Ultimately, LESSOR has terminated the tenancy
with effect from 31/10/2001 and communicated the same to the
defendants. In turn, defendants have agreed for the same and they
came forward to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule
premises of the plaintiff on 31/10/2001 subject to return of
security deposit.
At this stage, it is most important to note that LESSEEs have
requested the LESSOR to return the security deposit and to take
the vacant possession of the schedule premises. LESSOR has
insisted the LESSEEs to deliver the vacant possession of the
schedule premises and to allow the plaintiff to deduct arrears of
rents and other incidental charges from the security deposit and to
permit him to return the balance amount to the defendants. It is
regard to note that defendants have not agreed for any deductions
from the security deposit, including alleged arrears of rent,
maintenance charges, etc. During the existence of tenancy
between the parties, LESSOR has issued several legal notices to the
LESSEEs. Similarly LESSEEs have issued several legal notices to
the LESSOR, in connection with arrears of rent and return of
security deposit amount. Defendants have contended that LESSOR
has to return the security deposit first and then LESSOR is at
36 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
liberty to take the vacant possession of the schedule premises.
LESSOR has contended that LESSEEs have to deliver the vacant
possession of the schedule premises to the LESSOR first and then
they are entitle to receive the security deposit of Rs.8,04,000/-
subject to deduction of arrears of rents, etc. On scrutiny of the oral
evidence of DWs.1 and 2, admission made by PW.1 and covenants
of lease agreement dated 22/5/2000, it is ascertained that
LESSEEs have to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule
premises to the LESSOR first and then they get a right to insist the
LESSOR to return the security deposit.
In the instant case, LESSEEs have not placed required
evidence before the court to believe that they have delivered the
vacant possession of the schedule premises to the LESSOR, before
insisting the LESSOR to return the security deposit. On the other
hand, LESSEEs have brought pressure upon the LESSOR to return
the security deposit first and they have expressed their intention to
deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the
LESSOR immediately after receipt of the security deposit of
Rs.8,04,000/-. As per the clause-17 of the lease agreement
LESSEE has to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule
premises to the LESSOR and LESSOR has to return the security
37 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
deposit amount to the LESSEE soon after taking over the vacant
possession of the schedule premises. The relevant clause of lease
agreement dated 22/5/2000 reads as under:
"The LESSEE shall deliver back the vacant
possession of the scheduled premises to the
LESSOR immediately upon the expiry of the said
term or on earlier termination, if any, in good
and tenantable condition subject to reasonable
wear and tear, upon which the LESSOR shall
return the security deposit free of interest less
any lawful deduction immediately to the
LESSEE without any delay."
It is well established principles of law that documentary
evidence prevails over the oral evidence of parties. Ex.D.27 is the
lease agreement entered between the parties on 22/5/2000 and the
same has been duly signed by LESSOR and LESSEEs. In view of
the same the lease agreement dated 22/5/2000 (Ex.D.27) prevails
over the oral evidence and admissions of parties.
It is regret to note that LESSEEs have not acted upon clause
17 of the lease agreement dated 22/5/2000. Admittedly, LESSOR
has terminated the tenancy with effect from 31/10/2001. Inspite
of receipt of notice of termination of tenancy, LESSEEs have not
delivered the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the
LESSOR either on 31/10/2001 or on the next day. In view of
clause 17 of the lease agreement, LESSOR has not bound to return
38 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
the security deposit to the LESSEEs, until LESSEEs delivers the
vacant possession of the schedule premises to the LESSOR.
Therefore, LESSOR (plaintiff in OS No.483/2002) is not liable to
pay interest to the security deposit amount till the date of actual
delivery of vacant possession of schedule premises to the LESSOR.
Oral evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and admissions made by PW.1
makes it abundantly clear that LESSEEs (Plaintiffs in OS
No.6375/2004) have delivered the vacant possession of the
schedule premises to the defendant in the said suit on 24/5/2002.
It can be seen in the admission made by PW.1. The relevant
portion of the oral evidence of PW.1 reads as under:
"It is true that the defendant has delivered the
keys of the suit premises to my advocate on
24/5/2002 along with the letter dated
24/5/2002. I see copy of the said letter. It is
marked as Ex.D.5."
Once the LESSOR (Plaintiff in OS No.483/2002) took the
vacant possession of the schedule premises from the LESSEEs
(defendants in OS No.483/2002), it is mandatory on the part
of LESSOR to return the security deposit to the LESSEEs. In
the instant case, LESSOR has not return the security deposit
subject to deduction of lawful dues payable to him by
LESSEEs.
39 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
In the instant case, LESSOR has taken over the
possession of schedule premises on 24/5/2002, but he has
not returned the security deposit to the LESSEEs. Therefore,
LESSOR (defendant in OS No.6375/2004) is bound to return
the security deposit amount of Rs.8,04,000/- to the plaintiffs,
soon after taking over the possession of schedule premises
from the plaintiffs subject to deduction of lawful dues. The
evidence on record clearly discloses that defendant in OS
No.6375/2004 has not return the security deposit, even after
taking over the possession of schedule premises. It amounts
to breach of terms of the lease agreement dated 22/5/2000.
Therefore, defendant in OS No.6375/2004 is liable to interest
on the security deposit from the date of taking over possession
till the date of return of security deposit. In short, plaintiffs in
OS No.6375/2004 are entitle for the refund of security deposit
of Rs.8,04,000/-. In addition, plaintiffs are entitle for interest
at the rate of 24% per annum on the security deposit amount
of Rs.8,04,000/- from 1/7/2000 to 15/9/2000, amounting to
Rs.40,200/- (8,04,000 x 24/100 = 192,960 x 2 ½ months
divided by 12), since LESSOR has not provided 40 KVA
40 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
electricity power connection to the schedule premises as per
the terms of lease agreement for 2 ½ months (1/7/2000 to
15/9/2000).
Plaintiffs in OS No.6375/2004 are entitle to recover
security deposit amount of Rs.8,04,000/- + rents at the rate of
Rs.67,000/- per month from October 2001 till 23/5/2002 i.e.
for a period of 7 months 3 weeks, it comes to Rs.5,19,200/- +
interest amount of Rs.40,200/- (i.e. interest @ 18% per annum
on the arrears of rent of Rs.1,67,500/-). In all, plaintiffs are
entitle to recover sum of Rs.13,63,400/- (8,04,000 + 5,19,200
+ 40,200) from the defendant.
As far as 1st relief sought in OS No.483/2002 is
concerned, PW.1 has categorically admitted that on
24/5/2002 defendants have delivered the vacant possession of
the schedule premises to the plaintiff. In view of the same, the
first relief in OS No.483/2002 became infructuous.
As far as mesne profits claimed in OS No.6375/2004 is
concerned, PW.1 has categorically admitted that he has not
allowed the defendants to remove all the fixtures and furniture
from the schedule premises, after termination of tenancy
41 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002
including generator set and caused much humiliation
harassment to the defendant without any justifiable reasons.
Wherefore, the defendant in OS No.6375/2004 is liable to pay
damages to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month,
as claimed i.e. from 24/5/2002 till the date of handing over
the actual possession of furniture, fixtures and other movables
of the defendant.
Based upon precise discussion held herein above, this
court proceed to answer issues No.1 and 2 in OS No.483/2002
in affirmative and issue No.1 in OS No.6375/2004 is answered
partly in affirmative and issue No.2 is answered in affirmative.
12. ISSUE No.3 IN OS No.483/2002 & OS No.6375/2004 :
Based upon precise discussion held while answering issues
No.1 and 2 in both suits and for the reasons there under, this
court proceed to answer issue No.3 in both suits partly in
affirmative and proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
OS No.483/2002 42 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002 Suit is decreed.
Plaintiff is entitle to recover sum of Rs.5,19,150/- with court cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.
Defendants are hereby directed to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
OS No.6375/2004 Suit is decreed for Rs. 13,63,400/- with court cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Apart from it, defendant is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of taking over the actual possession of the schedule premises from the plaintiffs till the date of handing over the possession of furniture and fixtures, including generator set to the plaintiffs. A separate enquiry is needed to ascertain the date of delivery of moveables to the plaintiffs. Defendant is hereby directed to pay the decree amount to the plaintiffs within 3 months from the date of decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Judgment Writer typed to my dictation on computer; corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of March, 2016).
(A.GURUMURTHY) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE 43 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Raja Jayashankar WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : T. Janardhan Reddy.
DW.2 : Chungath Devassy Louis DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Letter dated 16/1/2000 written by plaintiff to defendant No.2.
Ex.P.2 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 14/2/2001. Ex.P.3 : Reply to legal notice dated 3/3/2001. Ex.P.4 : Legal notice dated 18/8/2001 issued by defendants to plaintiff.
Ex.P.5 & 6: Postal Acknowledgements. Ex.P.7 : Reply to ExP.4.
Ex.P.8 : Letter dated 17/10/2001 by defendant No.2 to Plaintiff counsel.
Ex.P.9: Office copy of legal notice dated 28/10/2001. Ex.P.10: Letter dated 22/12/2000 written by 2nd defendant to plaintiff.
Ex.P.11 to 40 : Electricity bills and receipts. Ex.P.41 to 54: Copies of the letters demand the share in the Electricity bills.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Letter from defendants to plaintiff dated 13/11/2001 Ex.D.2 : Letter from defendants to plaintiff dated 28/11/2001 Ex.D.3 : Letter from defendants to plaintiff dated 23/10/2001 Ex.D.4 : Postal Envelope.
Ex.D.5 : Copy of letter dated 24/5/2002. Ex.D.6 : Letter dated 10/11/2000 address to plaintiff by defendant.
Ex.D.7 : Letter dated 22/12/2000 addressed to plaintiff along
44 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002 with acknowledgment card.
Ex.D.8 : Letter dated 3/3/2001 addressed to plaintiff's counsel Ex.D.9 : Letter dated 3/3/2001 addressed to plaintiff's counsel.
Ex.D.10: Letter dated 17/10/2001 addressed to plaintiff along with postal receipt.
Ex.D.11: Letter dated 23/10/2001 addressed to plaintiff along with postal acknowledgement card. Ex.D.12: Legal Notice dated 28/10/2001 addressed to defendants Ex.D.13: Letter dated 13/11/2001 addressed to plaintiff. Ex.D.14: Letter dt. 24/11/2001 addressed to plaintiff. Ex.D.15: Letter dated 28/11/2001 addressed to plaintiff Ex.D.16: Returned registered post cover sent to plaintiff. Ex.D.17: Letter dated 30/11/2001 addressed to plaintiff Ex.D.18: Letter dated 14/12/2001 addressed to plaintiff Ex.D.19: Letter dated 7/1/2002 addressed to plaintiff. Ex.D.20: Letter dated 1/2/2002 addressed to plaintiff. Ex.D.21: Office copy of letter dated 15/7/2002 addressed to Raja Galaxy Ex.D.22: Letter dated 19/9/2002 addressed to PSI, JP Nagar PS Ex.D.23: GPA executed in favour of defendant No.1 company Ex.D.24: Legal Notice dated 16/12/2000 to defendant Ex.D.25: Legal Notice dated 18/8/2001 issued to defendant Ex.D.26: Office copy of notice to plaintiff dt.13/5/2004. Ex.D.27: Agreement to Lease.
(A.GURUMURTHY) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
45 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002 Judgment pronounced in open court. Vide separate order.
ORDER Suit is decreed.
Plaintiff is entitle to recover sum of Rs.5,19,150/- with court cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.
Defendants are hereby directed to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(A.GURUMURTHY) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
46 OS 6375/2004 C/W OS 483/2002 Judgment pronounced in open court. Vide separate order.
ORDER Suit is decreed for Rs. 13,63,400/- with court cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Apart from it, defendant is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of taking over the actual possession of the schedule premises from the plaintiffs till the date of handing over the possession of furniture and fixtures, including generator set to the plaintiffs. A separate enquiry is needed to ascertain the date of delivery of moveables to the plaintiffs. Defendant is hereby directed to pay the decree amount to the plaintiffs within 3 months from the date of decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(A.GURUMURTHY) XV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.