Delhi District Court
Dic India Ltd vs Gurdeep Kaur on 27 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK :
DISTRICT JUDGE-06 : WEST DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CIV. DJ 611862/2016
CNR NO.DLWT01-002752-2015
IN THE MATTER OF :-
DIC INDIA LTD.
(THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. S.SARKAR)
OFFICE AT:
C-55, A & B PHASE-II, NOIDA
UTTAR PRADESH
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. GURDEEP KAUR
W/O SH. HARNEK SINGH
R/O WZ-18, GALI NO.1, LAJWANTI GARDENS,
NEW DELHI-110046
.....DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.10.2015
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF FINAL ARGUMENT : 12.04.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.04.2024
DECISION : DECREED
COUNTER CLAIM 43/2018
CNR NO.DLWT01-011310-2018
IN THE MATTER OF :-
MRS. GURDEEP KAUR
W/O SH. HARNEK SINGH
R/O WZ-18, GALI NO.1, LAJWANTI GARDENS,
NEW DELHI-110046
.....DEFENDANT/CLAIMANT
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur
Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 1 of 23
VERSUS
DIC OF INDIA LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. S.SARKAR
OFFICE AT:
C-55, A & B PHASE-II, NOIDA
UTTAR PRADESH
.....PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.12.2018
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF FINAL ARGUMENT : 12.04.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.04.2024
DECISION : DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lac and Fifty Thousand only) and a counter claim filed by the defendant seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lac and Fifty Thousand only).
Pleadings of the parties
2. The brief facts, as revealed from the pleadings, are; A) Plaintiff DIC India Limited is stated to be a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Premises No.C-55 A & B Phase-II, Noida-201305, Uttar Pradesh. The suit has been instituted by Sh. S.Sarkar, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff, who has been authorized to do so by means a Power of Attorney dated 02.11.1999.
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 2 of 23B) It is the case of the plaintiff that it took on rent a godown from the defendant Gurdeep Kaur for a limited period of 36 months on a rent of Rs.3,50,000/- per month. The agreed terms of tenancy were reduced in writing in the form of a 'license agreement' dated 29.01.2013, which was duly registered. Parties agreed that the tenancy shall carry a lock-in period of 18 months. The license agreement contained a stipulation to the effect that in case plaintiff vacates the property before the lock-in period, it would be liable to pay rent for the remaining period. It was agreed upon that after the lock-in period, either party can terminate the agreement by giving a three months' notice to the opposite party. At the time of executing the license agreement, plaintiff paid one month's advance rent of Rs.3,50,000/- and a security cheque of Rs.12,50,000/- to the defendant and this aspect was duly recorded in the agreement. C) It has been stated that plaintiff terminated the tenancy after the expiry of lock-in period by giving a three months' notice to the defendant. Plaintiff issued a notice dated 27.09.2014 to the defendant expressing its desire to vacate the godown on 31.12.2014. Plaintiff claims that it could not vacate the godown by the agreed date due to certain unavoidable circumstances. Plaintiff sought an extension from the defendant, which was granted and it finally vacated the godown on 15.01.2015.
D) Plaintiff has disclosed that it issued a letter dated 22.01.2015 to the defendant asking her to take over the physical possession of the property and refund the security amount but she failed to do so. It has been stated by the plaintiff that in order to avoid the payment of the CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 3 of 23security amount, defendant issued a frivolous reply to the letter through her counsel claiming therein that the security amount stands forfeited. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant was served with the summons. She contested the suit by filing written statement along with a counter claim. She admitted the lease deed and also admitted having received the security amount. She set up a defence that plaintiff vacated the godown on 31.03.2015 and therefore, the security amount was forfeited. She claimed that plaintiff is liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- per month for wrongly occupying the rented premises from 15.08.2014 to 31.03.2015. She mentioned that plaintiff is in arrears of rent and it had not paid the rent since 01.01.2015. She admitted that the plaintiff sought extension of time for vacating the rented premises. She alleged that the time was extended till 15.01.2015 but plaintiff failed to vacate the godown by the said date. She mentioned that plaintiff vacated the godown only on 31.03.2015. She claimed in the counter claim that she suffered loss on account of the delay in handing over of the possession by the plaintiff. She mentioned that she could not let out the godown to an intending tenant, who was willing to pay rent @ Rs.6,00,000/- per month. She sought recovery of a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- from the plaintiff as the arrears of rent, electricity charges and damages.
4. Plaintiff filed replication and written statement to the counter claim of the defendant wherein it reiterated the contents of the plaint.
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur
Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 4 of 23
Issues
5. The following issues were framed :-
Issues in the Suit
Issue No.1:- Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 12,50,000/-? OPP Issue No.2:- Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest pendente lite? If yes, at what rate ? OPP Issue No.3:- Whether plaintiff has violated terms of lease and as such the security deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- is liable to be forfeited? OPD Issue No.4:- Relief, if any.
Issues in the Counter Claim Issue No.5:- Whether defendant/counter claimant is entitled for money decree of Rs. 17,50,000/-? OPD Issue No.6:- Whether plaintiff has caused substantial damage to the suit property as alleged? OPD Issue No.7:- Whether defendant/counter claimant is entitled for interest pendente lite and if yes, at what rate ? OPD Evidence
6. Plaintiff led evidence and examined only one witness i.e. PW- 1/Raghav Shukla. He supported the contents of the plaint by filing his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He tendered in evidence the following documents;
i. Copy of resolution (Ex.PW-1/1);
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur
Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 5 of 23
ii. Copy of leave and license agreement (Ex.PW-1/2);
iii. Copy of notice dated 27.09.2014 (Ex.PW-1/3); iv. Copy of letter dated 22.01.2015 (Ex.PW-1/4); v. Copy of legal notice dated 22.01.2015 (Ex.PW-1/5); vi. Reply to the legal notice dated 22.01.2015 (Ex.PW-1/6); vii. Copy of reply dated 02.02.2015 (Ex.PW-1/7); viii. Copy of rejoinder dated 09.02.2015 (Ex.PW-1/8);
ix. Reply dated 13.02.2015 (Ex.PW-1/9);
x. Copy of legal notice dated 16.03.2015 (Ex.PW-1/10);
xi. Copy of reply dated 20.02.2015 (Ex.PW-1/11);
xii. Copy of letter dated 20.03.2025 (Ex.PW-1/12);
7. Defendant/Counter Claimant also examined only one witness i.e. herself as DW-1. She filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW- 1/A and relied on the following documents:
i. Copy of registered rent agreement dated 29.11.2013 (Ex.DW-1/1);
ii. Copy of notice dated 27.09.2014 (Ex.DW-1/2); iii. Photographs (Ex.DW-1/3) (colly);
iv. Copy of legal notice dated 22.01.2015 (Ex.DW-1/4); v. Copy of legal notice dated 02.02.2015 (Ex.DW-1/5); vi. Copy of bills for rent charges dated 01.02.2015, 03.02.2015 and 01.03.2015 and 02.03.2015 (Ex.DW-1/6 to Ex.DW-1/9); vii. Copy of counter claim (Ex.DW-1/10);
viii. Copy of legal notices dated 13.02.2015 and 20.03.2015 (Ex.DW-1/9 & Ex.DW-1/11);
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.Page 6 of 23
Arguments
8. Arguments were heard.
9. Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff has established its claim. He mention that plaintiff terminated the tenancy by giving a valid notice to the defendant. He contended that plaintiff conveyed his willingness to the defendant to hand over the possession of the godown but the defendant deliberately avoided to take back the physical possession. He mentioned that defendant has presented a false story to avoid the refund of the security amount. He contended that defendant has admitted the plaintiff's claim. He mentioned that there is a contradiction between the averments made in the plaint and the testimony of the defendant. He contended that defendant has tried to set up a new case that plaintiff was in arrears of rent since the month of October 2014. He mentioned that defendant was duty bound to refund the security but she failed to do so. He contended that plaintiff's case has been duly proved and the suit should be decreed.
10.On the other hand, counsel for defendant has submitted that plaintiff is in arrears of rent since the month of October 2014. He contended that plaintiff failed to hand over the physical possession of the godown by the agreed date and therefore, the security amount was forfeited. He mentioned that plaintiff is liable to pay damages to the defendant. He contended that the testimony of the plaintiff's witness CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 7 of 23is of no consequence. He mentioned that it can be seen from the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness that he had no clue about the facts of the present case. He mentioned that the suit should be dismissed and the counter claim should be allowed.
11.I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
Issue-wise findings
12.The issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1:- Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 12,50,000/-? OPP Issue No.3:- Whether plaintiff has violated terms of lease and as such the security deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- is liable to be forfeited? OPD
13.Both the issues are taken up together as they are interconnected. It is evident from the pleadings, documents and the evidence that parties have not disputed the material facts. Parties admitted having entered into a license agreement dated 29.01.2013. Parties have not disputed that the agreed rate of rent was Rs.3,50,000/- per month. It is an admitted stand of the parties that the license agreement was executed for a period of 36 months with a lock-in period of 18 months. The dispute revolves around the question as to when the possession of the premises was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant. Plaintiff has alleged that it vacated the godown on 31.01.2015 whereas defendant has submitted that she received the possession of the CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 8 of 23godown on 31.03.2015. Besides this aspect, parties have also disputed the arrears of rent and the period for which the rent is payable. Plaintiff has claimed that the rent was paid till 31.01.2015 while defendant has alleged that rent and electricity charges were not paid from October 2014 onwards.
14.In order to support its case, plaintiff examined PW-1/Raghav Shukla. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and placed reliance on various documents. It can be seen from the cross-examination of this witness that his testimony is of no consequence. It was found during cross-examination of the witness that he was not aware about the facts of the present case. He stated in cross-examination that the license deed was not executed in his presence and he had no idea that it carried a lock-in period. He mentioned that he does not know if any notice for termination or extension was issued to the defendant. He stated in cross-examination that he does not know when the possession of the premises was handed over to the defendant. He mentioned that he does not know up to which date the plaintiff remained in possession of the rented premises. He mentioned that he does not know on which date the plaintiff shifted from the rented premises. He mentioned that he does not know up to which month the rent was paid to the defendant. It becomes evident from the cross- examination of this witness that he was not aware about the facts of present the case. His testimony does not advance the plaintiff's cause. However, the documents tendered by him does support the plaintiff's claim.
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 9 of 2315.Parties have admitted that the license agreement was executed between them and it was duly registered. It can be seen from the terms & conditions of the license agreement that the document was essentially a 'lease deed', although, it has been described as a 'license agreement'. In the respective pleadings, parties have themselves described the said document as 'lease deed'. In case the terms of the lease have been reduced in writing in the form of a contract, the respective rights & obligations of the parties are governed by the terms of the said contract. The relevant conditions of the lease are contained in clause-1 to 10 and clause-16 of the lease agreement dated 29.01.2013 (Ex.PW-1/2) and the same are being reproduced as under:
"NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
1) That in consideration of the stipulated herein described and the observance of the terms and agreed by then, the Licensor do hereby grant permission to the Licensee to use and occupy the said property for a period of 36 months only commencing from the 15.02.2013 for Depot & Branch Office purpose.
2) This agreement shall be for a period of 36 months commencing from 15.02.2013 to 14.02.2016 with a lock-in period of 18 months and with further option for further renewal based on mutual discussion; And on the expiry of this agreement, the Licensee shall remove himself/goods/material and servants and all things belonging to him from the said property and vacate the said property without causing any obstruction or hindrance whatsoever to the Licensor.
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur
Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 10 of 23
3) That the entire leave and license period i.e w.e.f.
15/02/2013 till 14/08/2014 shall be termed as lock-in period. The licensor cannot ask or serve notice to the licensee to vacate the said property during this period. Similarly the licensee cannot vacate or serve notice to the licensor to vacate the said property during this period unless it is required under statutory compulsion.
4) That the licensee, if vacates the said property before the completion of the lock-in period w.e.f 1502/2013 till 14/08/2014 is liable to pay the rent for the remaining lock- in period along with the year on year increase in rent to the licensor.
5) This agreement can be terminated by either party by giving Three month notice to other party after the expiry of the Lock-in period i.e. 15/02/2013 till 14/08/2014.
6) That the Licensee shall utilize the period between 01/02/2013 to 14/02/2013 for white wash, electrical fittings and other fixtures as per their requirement and not for its business activities in the said property and no monthly compensation shall be payable for this period. If the Licensee is found to carry out its business activities in the said property any time during this period then the Licensee is liable to pay rent for this period ts well.
7) The Licensee have provided a sum of Rs. 12, 50,000/- (Rupees TWELVE LAC FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) by Cheque No. 517587, dated 23/01/2013, drawn.on: State Bank of India, NEPZ Branch, Noida. Which will be refundable on vacating of the said property; towards Security Deposit without any interest for fulfillment's of the terms, covenants & conditions by the Licensor. (The same the Licensor hereby admits acknowledges and release the Licensee forever.)
8) That the licensee agrees, and assures to pay Rs.3,50,000/-
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 11 of 23(Rupees THREE LAC FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) per month plus Service Tax if applicable towards monthly license fees for the said property in advance by the 20th day of every month during the execution of agreement. All property taxes will be borne by the licensor.
9) That the licensee agrees and assures to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees THREE LAC FIFITY THOUSAND ONLY) as one month advance rent after adding service tax and deducting TDS and CESS as-applicable.
10) The monthly license fees shall increase by 5% over and above the last monthly license fee, after the completion of every 12 Months.
..................
.................
16) The Licensee shall at the termination of this Agreement whereof by efflux of time or otherwise however, deliver peaceful and quite possession of the said presents, However, during the period of this agreement; the Lincesee shall bear all the costs and express for the minor repairing work, inside the said property or outside said property and it will be responsibility of the Licensee. All major repairing work will be undertaken by the licensor on the request of the licensee".
16.The above mentioned terms & conditions of the lease deed show that parties arrived at mutual understanding that the lease would continue for a period of 36 months commencing from 15.02.2013 to 14.02.2016. It was decided by the parties that the lease shall carry a lock-in period of 18 months and during the said period, the landlord can not ask the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. It was agreed upon that in case, the tenant vacates the property before the lock-in period, he shall be liable to pay rent for the remainder period. Clause-
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 12 of 237 of the lease deed recorded that the tenant had paid a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- to the landlord as interest free security deposit. Clause-8 mentioned that the rate of rent shall be Rs.3,50,000/- per month and the same shall be paid in advance by the 20 th day of each calender month. Clause-9 recorded that the tenant had paid one month's advance rent to the landlord. Clause-10 contained a condition that after completion of 12 months, the monthly rent shall be enhanced by 5 per cent. Clause-16 provided that on termination of the lease, the tenant shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord.
17.The only defence presented by the defendant is that the plaintiff failed to vacate the suit property on 31.12.2014. Defendant admitted in the written statement that plaintiff served upon her a notice dated 27.09.2014 expressing its desire to vacate the property on 31.12.2014. There is a clear cut admission of defendant in this regard in para-3 of the para-wise reply of the written statement. In the said para-wise reply, defendant has submitted that plaintiff was required to hand over the possession of the premises by 31.12.2014. Defendant has stated in the written statement that plaintiff sought extension of time for vacating the tenanted premises by 15.01.2015 but it failed to hand over the possession by the said date. It is the stand of the defendant that plaintiff vacated the premises only on 31.03.2015. However, the said stand of the defendant gets falsify from the material placed on record.
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 13 of 2318.Plaintiff has placed on record a letter dated 22.01.2015 (Ex.PW1/4). In terms of this letter, plaintiff conveyed to the defendant that it has vacated the godown and removed all the fixtures & fittings and it demanded refund of the security deposit. Plaintiff further requested that the possession of the godown may be taken over by 31.01.2015. Plaintiff clarified in the letter that in case, defendant fails to take the possession of the premises by the said date, it would not be liable to pay rent for the further period. Defendant admitted the service of the said letter. In fact, defendant issued reply dated 02.02.2015 (Ex.PW1/7) to the letter claiming therein that the goods of the plaintiff were still lying in the tenanted premises and therefore, the security amount stands forfeited. Defendant further claimed in the reply that plaintiff is liable to pay damages of Rs. 20,00,000/- for damaging the rented premises.
19.The law in respect to the termination of lease by a tenant is well settled. In case, a tenant vacates the tenanted premises and notifies the landlord to take delivery of the possession, the lease comes to an end. The refusal of the landlord to accept the possession would amount to delivery of possession and the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord though, the landlord may not accept the same. A similar issue arose for consideration in the matter of "Raja Laksman Singh Vs State" AIR 1988 Rajasthan 44 where the tenant terminated the tenancy and offered the vacant possession to the landlord, who, however, refused to take the possession and put conditions to it. It was held by the court that the possession shall be CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 14 of 23deemed to have been delivered as soon as the property was vacated. The Court made the following observations:-
"23. ....Vacation of the property together with a notice to the landlord to take the delivery of the possession is submission for the purpose of restoration of the possession and, any impediment put up by the landlord in the matter of redelivery of the possession and not accepting the possession on the ground that some terms and conditions will have to be fulfilled will amount to the delivery of possession and it shall be deemed for all purposes that as soon as the property has been vacated the possession has been delivered though the landlord may not accept the possession. Mr. Kasliwal has also cited before me the case of Kishanlal v. Ganpat Ram. AIR 1961 SC 1554. Their Lordships were considering the question of delivery of possession. It is true that under Section 108(q) it is one of the obligations of the contract of tenancy that the tenant will on determination of the tenancy put the landlord in possession of the property demised. In the case of Kishanlal (supra) the possession was not going to be delivered which can be said to be a vacant possession.
24. Dy. Government Advocate, Mr. Rafiq, has cited before me the case of President of F. 1250 Chowghat Firka P.C.C. Co- operative Society Ltd., A. C. Raman v. Muthavally Seydali's Son Valiyakath Kaithakkal Kunhi Bara Haji, AIR 1953 Mad 996. Their Lordships in para 5 has held that the landlord cannot challenge notice or termination of tenancy but must sue for damages for willful negligence of tenant. There is nothing in the section to compel to defendant who has terminated the tenancy and who has offered to deliver vacant possession and whose offer has been refused by the landlord on the ground that the possession shall be taken back only on the payment of Rs. 5,000/- by way of damages. If the tenant fails to comply with the demand for damages, however, legitimate it might be the plaintiff will have a right to sue for damages for the negligence, default or other acts of the defendant. The remedy which the plaintiff has chosen in this case that he shall take possession CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.Page 15 of 23
only when the conditions are fulfilled i.e. when the damages are paid is absolutely without any basis."
20.In the matter of "Onida Finance Limited Vs Malini Khanna" 2002 (3) AD (Delhi) 231, the tenant terminated the lease by giving a month's notice and called upon the landlord to take the vacant possession of the tenanted premises. The tenant further demanded the return of the security deposit as well as unadjusted advanced rent. The landlord, however, did not take the possession, whereupon, the tenant filed a suit for recovery of the security and unadjusted advanced rent and deposited the keys in the court. The landlord contested the suit on various grounds inter-alia that the entire security and the advanced rent have been adjusted in the rent after the termination. The landlord also filed a counter claim to claim the rent upto the date of taking the keys from the court. The High Court of Delhi held in the matter that the landlord can not refuse to take possession upon termination of lease by notice and offer of possession. The relevant paras of the judgment as as under:-
"28. It is trite that when the lease is terminated by notice and the possession is offered, the landlord cannot refuse to take the possession. If the landlord refuses to take the possession, the lease would not continue. Therefore, even if the contention of the defendant herein was that the tenancy was for a period of three years, she could take possession and thereafter sue the plaintiff for rent. She did not do so. She took calculated risk by challenging the action of the plaintiff in terminating the tenancy and avoided to take possession.
29. It is held that the plaintiff had offered to surrender the actual vacant possession of the premises and it is he CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.Page 16 of 23
defendant who did not take the possession thereof on 15th February, 1997 although offered by the plaintiff. Therefore, the valid surrender of the tenanted premises took place on 15th February, 1997 even when the actual possession was taken on 13th September, 1997 when the keys of the tenanted premises were taken by the defendant which was deposited by the plaintiff while filing the suit."
21.In the case of "Tamil Naidu Handloom Weavers Society Vs Harbans Lal Gupta" 2009 (107) DRJ (418), in terms of the lease deed, the tenant terminated the lease by three months notice and demanded the balance security deposit from the landlord. The landlord refused to take back the possession and raised various issues with respect to non-restoration of the suit property as well as non- payment of electricity and water charges whereupon the tenant filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of security deposit. The landlord made a counter claim for recovery of rent up to the date of possession as well as damages to the suit property. The High Court while adjudicating the matter, reiterated that where the tenant vacates the tenanted premises and notifies to the landlord to take the delivery of possession, the lease comes to an end and in case, landlord refused to accept the possession, it would amount to delivery of possession and the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord.
22.In the matter of "Kamal Mangla Vs TATA Finance Ltd." 2011, ILR (3) Delhi 682, the High Court of Delhi held that in case the lease is validly terminated, the tenant is not under an obligation to pay rent CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 17 of 23after the offer of possession to the landlord. The said view point has been reiterated in the matters of "Associated Journals Limited & Anr. Vs ICRA Ltd.", Manu/DE/0851/2012 and "H.S.Bedi Vs National Highway Authority of India" 2020 (2015) DLT 179.
23.Coming back to the present case, admittedly, the tenancy was terminated after the lock-in period. Plaintiff duly terminated the tenancy by issuing a legal notice dated 27.09.2014 to the defendant expressing its desire to vacate the property on 31.12.2014. The notice was issued by the plaintiff in terms of Clause-5 of the lease deed and it was duly received by the defendant. However, plaintiff could not vacate the tenanted premises by the specified date and sought extension of time for vacating it by 15.01.2015. Thereafter, plaintiff wrote a letter dated 22.01.2015 to the defendant offering the possession of the suit premises and demanding the refund of the security amount. Instead of taking the possession of the suit premises, defendant issued a reply to the legal notice on 02.02.2015 mentioning that the security amount stands forfeited. In the said reply, defendant further claimed that plaintiff is liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac only). It is visible from the record that defendant made no effort to take back the possession of the rented premises from the plaintiff even though plaintiff clearly expressed its intention to surrender the possession by means of letter dated 22.01.2015. Defendant has not presented any explanation for not taking over the possession of the tenanted premises. Plaintiff disclosed in the letter that it has vacated the CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 18 of 23tenanted premises and all the fixtures have been shifted to some other premises. No evidence has been led by the defendant to falsify this stand of the plaintiff. It becomes obvious that defendant deliberately did not take over the possession of the rented premises even though it was validly tendered by the plaintiff after terminating the tenancy as per the terms of the lease deed. In these circumstances, it is deemed that the possession was delivered by the plaintiff on 31.01.2015. In view of this, plaintiff is not liable to pay the rent for the subsequent period.
24.Defendant stated in the written statement that plaintiff had not paid the rent and electricity charges since 01.01.2015. There is a clear admission in para-4 of the para-wise reply of the written statement that the rent was not paid with effect from 01.01.2015. Defendant reiterated the said stand in para-12 of her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A) by mentioning that plaintiff vacated the premises on 31.03.2015 i.e. three months from the agreed period without paying rent, damages and electricity charges for the said period. However, DW-1/defendant came up with a different version during cross-examination. She mentioned that plaintiff had not paid rent since the month of October 2014. Counsel for defendant addressed arguments on similar lines mentioning that rent is due from the month of October 2014 to January 2015. It is a settled preposition that a party cannot be allowed to set up a case which has not been pleaded. The evidence cannot go beyond pleadings. In view of this, the stand of the defendant that the rent was due from the CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 19 of 23month of October 2014 has to be rejected.
25.There is no evidence to demonstrate that plaintiff violated the terms of the lease deed. Plaintiff duly terminated the tenancy by serving a three months' notice on the defendant in terms of clause-5 of the lease deed and offered the possession to the defendant. Defendant has admitted that she received a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- as security deposit from the plaintiff. It is also an admitted position that plaintiff paid advance rent of Rs.3,50,000/- to the defendant. In view of discussion made in the afore-mentioned paras, it is deemed that plaintiff delivered the possession of the rented premises to the defendant on 31.01.2015. Plaintiff is only liable to pay rent till the said period. In view of this, the advance rent paid by the plaintiff stands adjusted towards the rent for the month of January 2015. Defendant, upon determination of lease and offer of possession by the plaintiff, could not have refused to take over the possession on the ground that the property has been damaged. She was under an obligation to refund the security amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly Issue No.1 & 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No.2:- Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest pendente lite? If yes, at what rate ? OPP
26.Coming to the aspect whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive interest on the security. "Interest" as defined in Black's Law CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 20 of 23Dictionary is the compensation fixed by agreement or allowed by law for the use or detention of money, or for the loss of money by one who is entitled to its use; especially, the amount owed to a lender in return for the use of the borrowed money. A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name.
27.In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra 2002 1 SCC 367, the Supreme Court observed that a person is entitled for compensation for the deprivation of the money due to the creditor which was not paid, or, in other words, was withheld from him by the debtor after the time when payment should have been made, in breach of his legal rights, and interest was a compensation whether the compensation was liquidated under an agreement or statute.
28.It is an admitted stand of the parties that the security amount was deposited with an understanding that it would not carry any interest. However, once the plaintiff validly terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice and offered the possession of the tenanted premises, defendant was under an obligation to refund the security deposit forthwith. By continuing to retain the security deposit, defendant deprived the plaintiff of the money which it was legally entitled to receive. In these circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite & future interest at a reasonable rate. I am of the considered opinion that interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the security deposit would meet the ends of justice and the same is being awarded.
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur
Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 21 of 23
Issue No.5:- Whether defendant/counter claimant is entitled for money decree of Rs. 17,50,000/-? OPD Issue No.6:- Whether plaintiff has caused substantial damage to the suit property as alleged? OPD Issue No.7:- Whether defendant/counter claimant is entitled for interest pendente lite and if yes, at what rate ? OPD
29.Issue No.5, 6 & 7 are interconnected and the same are being taken up together. The onus of these issues was placed on the defendant. It has been proved on record that plaintiff validly terminated the tenancy and offered the possession to the defendant by means of letter dated 22.01.2015. Defendant alleged in the counter claim that plaintiff damaged the rented premises. She claimed damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- per month from the plaintiff. She claimed that plaintiff needs to pay the damages for the month of January 2014 to March 2014. She claimed that the security amount of Rs.12,50,000/- stands adjusted towards the composite figure of damages of Rs.30,00,000/- and she has restricted her claim to Rs.17,50,000/-. The bald averments in the counter claim that plaintiff damaged the rented premises does not advance the cause of defendant. She has not led any evidence to substantiate the stand that plaintiff damaged the rented premises. In the absence of evidence, the said plea deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, Issue No.5, 6 & 7 are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 22 of 23RELIEF
30.The counter claim of the defendant is dismissed. The suit is decreed with the following reliefs : -
(a) A decree for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lac and Fifty Thousand only).
(b) Pendent-elite and future interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the decreetal amount till realization.
(c) Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 27.04.2024 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) District Judge-06 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.04.2024 CS 611862/2016 DIC India Ltd. Vs Gurdeep Kaur Counter Claim 43/2018 Gurdeep Kaur Vs DIC India Ltd.
Page 23 of 23