Delhi District Court
Sh.Balwant Singh Dhamrait vs M/S Cmc Limited on 24 July, 2008
IN THE COURT OF Ms.INA MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE: DELHI.
Suit no.274/04
1. Sh.Balwant Singh Dhamrait
S/o Sh.Amar Singh,
R/o 2171, Sector-21-C,
Chandigarh-160022.
2. Sh.Balbir Singh Dhamrait,
S/o Sh.Balwant Singh Dhamrait,
R/o 2171, Sector-21-C,
Chandigarh-160022.
3. Sh.Satnam Singh Dhamrait,
S/o Sh.Balwant Singh Dhamrait,
R/o 2171, Sector-21-C,
Chandigarh-160022. ..... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
M/s CMC Limited,
(A Govt. of India Enterprises)
Registered Office at:
C.M.C. Centre,
Old Bombay High Road,
Gachibowli,
Hyderabad-500019
Also at:
M/s C.M.C Limited,
(A Govt. of India Enterprises)
Regional Office at:
Jeevan Vihar, 2nd Floor,
3, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001. ..... Defendant
1
Plaint presented on :06.12.2000
Arguments concluded on:24.07.2008
Judgment on :24.07.2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff's suit is for recovery of possession of their house no.A-5, Ring Road Housing Cooperative Society, New Delhi South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi as well as for damages/mesne profits for their unauthorised holding over possession after determination of the lease. The plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the sons of plaintiff no.1, each having 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property.
2. The defendant, a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of India had taken the aforesaid premises on lease, comprising of a basement, ground and the first floor, a garage and one room above the garage for a period of three years from April 15, 1982 on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiffs' retained possession of a room on the second floor. After determination of the first lease, it was periodically extended on renewed terms and enhancement of rent. On 1.7.96, vide a lease deed duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar the rent was agreed to be paid at Rs.80,000/- per month from 1.7.96 to 2 30.6.98 and Rs.90,000/- per month from 1.7.98 to 30.6.99. It was expressly agreed upon that the said lease would not be renewed/extended thereafter. Despite determination of the lease, the defendant failed to handover the suit property. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 1.5.99 and also called upon the defendant not to deposit any rent in their account.
3. During pendency of this case, the defendant vacated the premises on November 2002.
4. The defendant has repudiated the claim of the plaintiff in its written statement.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
i. Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action? OPD.
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?
iii. Relief.
6. Plaintiff no.2 has been examined as PW1. His testimony is a reiteration of the averments made in the plaint. The power of attorney in his favour by the other plaintiffs is Ex.PW1/1. The site plan of the suit premises is 3 Ex.PW1/2. It is deposed by PW1 that the entire basement of 1984.5 sq. ft., ground floor of 2164.5 sq. ft., the first floor measuring 2164.5 sq. ft. and the garage with a room on top had been given to the defendant on lease on 15.4.82. The agreed lease rent at that time was Rs.20,000/-. The said agreement is Ex.PW1/3. Periodic renewals thereafter on enhanced rent are Exs.PW1/4 & 5. The lease deed dated 1.7.96 between the parties, Ex.PW1/6, was registered with the office of Sub Registrar. The plaintiffs had specifically conveyed to the defendants that they would not be renewing the lease with the defendant thereafter. Their letter dated 1.8.98 in this respect is Ex.PW1/7. Defendant's request for retaining the suit premises Ex.PW1/8 was duly replied vide their letter Ex.PW1/9 communicating that the defendant's request was unacceptable. On determination of the lease, the plaintiffs sent legal notice dated 1.5.99 Exs.PW1/12-13.
They also requested the defendant not to deposit the rent after the lease period vide their communications Exs.PW1/14-15. PW1 has further deposed that despite express written instructions, the defendant in gross violation of the same, continued to deposit the occupation charges in their account. The plaintiff has further submitted that the 4 current rate of rent in the same vicinity as the suit property and for similar properties was about Rs.82.50 per sq. ft. for the ground and the first floor and Rs.62.50 per sq. ft. for the basement. In support of his statement he has filed a certified copy of a lease deed Ex.PW1/20. The suit premises was subsequently vacated by the defendant on 30.11.02 and the plaintiffs then leased it to State Bank of India on a monthly rent of Rs.3.21 lakhs. Certified copy of the same is Ex.PW1/21. The plaintiffs therefore claim damages at the same rate from 1.7.99 to 30.11.02 when the defendants finally delivered possession.
7. In his cross examination PW1 admitted that the building under tenancy of the defendant was repaired and fully renovated before re-leasing it to the State Bank of India.
8. The defendant has examined one of its officials. Their reply to the plaintiff's notice has been exhibited is Ex.P1/1 (colly) . DW1 has repudiated they they are liable to pay damages at the rate claimed.
9. On appraisal of the evidence on record, my observations on the issues framed are as follows:
5ISSUE NO.1 ''Whether the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of cause action? OPD."
10. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. There is no evidence on record that the said suit should be rejected or that the plaintiffs did not have any cause of action to file the present suit.
This issue is therefore decided against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2.
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?"
11. With respect to issue no.2 the plaintiffs have been able to show that a registered lease deed was executed with the defendants. The lease stood determined on 30.6.99. The defendant was duty bound to hand over the suit property on termination of the lease period. By way of abundant precaution, the plaintiff had been conveying their intentions very categorically that there would be no renewal after determination of the lease. In view of the 6 same it was incumbent on the defendant to ensure that the said premises was handed over to the plaintiffs on time. The possession of the premises was handed over to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit i.e. in November 2002. The plaintiffs have claimed damages after relying upon the lease deeds of the similar properties in the same location. Ld. counsel of the defendant has urged that the lease agreements relied upon by the plaintiffs pertain to NDSE-II and are in respect of commercial properties and therefore can have no parity. Since the suit property was subsequently leased out to State Bank of India @ Rs.3.21 lakhs per month, the controversy of a different area or authorised commercial buildings need not be gone into. However, it is not disputed that the said premises was totally renovated for fresh leasing to their new tenant. The modernisation of the suit building was carried out as per the requirements of the State Bank of Inida. The defendant was in occupation for 17 years. Admittedly, no renovation was carried out during this period and the construction of the lease premises while being in possession of the defendant was old and out dated. Under such circumstances, no parity can be drawn with the rent under the new lease of a 7 totally renovated space. The rent paid by the defendants in July 1998 was Rs.90,000/- per month, an increase no doubt, but with existing old tenant reluctant to vacate. Taking judicial note of the rentals in the area where many buildings were in demand for commercial use, it would be equitable to award the plaintiff damages for the continuous unauthorised use and occupation of the plaintiff's premises comprising of a basement and two floors, at the rate of Rs.1.75 lakh per month. Though the damages in such like cases should be exemplary, this court has exercised restraint in awarding the same. It is an irresponsible state where a party knowingly refuses to handover the possession to the owners on time simply on the premise, that they would vacate when the owners seek a decree through the courts, and at best would make them liable to pay only the prevailing rentals as damages. That a public sector undertaking of the Govt. had chosen to act so irresponsibly is reprehensible. Keeping in view their irresponsible and recalcitrant behaviour in not giving back the possession of the plaintiffs' premises on time and forcing the plaintiffs to seek redressal only through courts they are also liable to pay interest @ 8% for the period of unauthorised use and occupation of the plaintiff's 8 property on the damages awarded.
Issue no.2 is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF.
12. In view of the preceding discussion, a decree in the sum of Rs.1.75 lakh per month from the date of termination of lease till the date of handing over the possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs' are also entitled to the costs and interest thereon @ 8% per annum.
13. Decree Sheet be prepared on the plaintiff's depositing the appropriate court fees and file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced. (INA MALHOTRA)
Addl. District Judge: Delhi
24.7.08
9