Delhi District Court
Vishnu Manglani vs . Ms Iyogi Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. on 24 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF ANIL ANTIL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 05 SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 398/17
Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
1.Vishnu Manglani S/o Late Sh. Gurbakshrai Rai Manglani Aged about 77 years R/o Terrace09, Oberoi Apartments 2Shamnath Marg, Delhi110054
2. Sh. Kapil Manglani S/o Sh. Vishnu Mangalni Aged about 47 years R/o Terrance 09, Oberoi Apartments 2Shamnath Marg, Delhi110054 ..........Plaintiffs Versus
1. M/s Iyogi Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.
(A company duly incorporated under Companies Act 1956) Having its registered office at 178 Golf links New Delhi11003 Also At DLF Building No. 6 Tower C CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 1 of 9 DLF Cyber City PhaseII Gurgaon122002 ...........Defendant Date of Institution of suit : 07.03.2017 Date reserved for orders : 10.10.2017 Date for pronouncement of Judgment : 24.10.2017 JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.11,09,397/ alongwith pendent lite and future interest @18% p.a. has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Plaintiff's version as per averments in the plaint : 2.1 Succinctly, that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and premises bearing Apartment no. 301, the Aralias, DLF City, PhaseV, Gurgaon 122009 comprising of living room, dining room, bedroom, 5 bathrooms, family room, kitchen, store, pantry and two servant quarters admeasuring of 6833 sq. ft.
2.2 That the defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant had taken the property in question on rent from the plaintiff vide lease deed dated registered on 30.06.2014 vide registration no. 7144 in book no. 1, Volume no. 13080 on page no. 186 and additional copy pasted in book no. 1, Volume no. 3656 on pages 94 to 95. The said tenancy was for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2016 at monthly rent of Rs.2,35,000/.
CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 2 of 9 2.3 That as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid lease deed defendant had also deposited Rs.4,70,000/ as security with plaintiff. The defendant company had paid rent till January 2016 and since then the defendant remained in arrears of rent.
2.4 That the defendant had vacated the property in question on 03.07.2016. a letter of possession was also executed between the parties in this regard. It is averred that the defendant company is in arrear of rents from February 2016 to June 2016 amounting of Rs.11,75,000/. The said amount has not been paid till dated despite repeated requests made by the plaintiffs.
2.5 That the defendant has also not deposited TDS amount on rents from April 2015 to January 2016, which was deducted by the defendant company and defendant is also liable to make payment of Rs.2,35,000/ towards the TDS. A total amount of Rs.9,40,000/ is payable by the defendant. Plaintiff issued a demand notice dated 28.07.2016 to the defendant thereby demanding the aforesaid amount. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
3. Summons of the suit was issued to the defendant. Defendant was duly served and filed his appearance on dated 25.03.2017 though its counsel, but no WS has been filed on behalf of defendant. Vide order dated 04.07.2017 the right of defendant to file WS stands closed.
4 ISSUES Before proceedings further, I must state that in the present case issues were framed which read as under: CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 3 of 9
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the amount as per prayer clause (a) of the suit? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Relief.
4. Evidence: 4.1 In plaintiff evidence, plaintiff Sh. Vishnu Manglani stepped into the witness box and deposed vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.PW1/A reiterating the contents of the plaint. Plaintiff also relied upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4.
No evidence was led by the defendant. His right to file WS was closed. The order attained finality.
This is the entire evidence adduced in this matter.
5. I have heard the submissions advanced by the both the parties. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously. I am of the considered opinion that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed against defendant for the reasons stated herein.
6. Issuewise findings: Issue no. 1 and 2
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the amount as per prayer clause (a) of the suit? OPP.
CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 4 of 9
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP 6.1 Onus of this issue is on the plaintiff. PW1 deposed on the lines of the averments of the plaint and the same are not repeated here for sake of brevity. Affirming the statements PW1 has also relied upon and duly proved the documents mentioned hereunder:
(i) lease deed dated 30.06.2014 executed between the parties registered on 30.06.2014 vide registration no. 7144 in book no. 1, Volume no. 13080 on page no. 186 and additional copy pasted in book no. 1, Volume no. 3656 on pages 94 to 95. The said tenancy was for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2016 at monthly rent of Rs.2,35,000/. The said lease deed is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. As per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid lease deed defendant had also deposited Rs.4,70,000/ as security with plaintiff
(ii) A letter of possession is exhibited as Ex.PW1/2. Perusal of the same reflects that the defendant has vacated the property in question on 03.07.2016.
(iii) Legal cum demand notice dated 28.07.2016 exhibited as Ex.Pw1/3 alongwith postal receipts exhibited as Ex.Pw1/4. 6.2 No WS was filed by the defendant despite being given number of opportunities and the right to filed the same was closed vide order dated 04.07.2017. therefore, the defendant has cross examined PW1 only on the points of law.
CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 5 of 9 6.3 Testimony of the plaintiff's witness has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff's witness or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the document exhibited and proved on record. The defendant choose not to file his WS/Defence to disprove the case of plaintiff as it stands. The case of the plaintiff stands established, as discussed above, vide his testimony and documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4.
6.4 During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant has taken objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It was argued that the suit pertains to recovery of arrears of rent of immovable property situated in Gurgaon and hence, relying on provision of Section 16 of CPC, it is urged a suit ought to have been instituted in the court pertaining to the jurisdiction in which the property is situated. However, I do not agree with the submissions advanced by the counsel.
6.5 Relevant provision of CPC are quoted herein: Section 16 deal with suits relating to immovable property, clauses (a) to (e) of Section 16 deal with the following five kinds of suits viz.
(i) Suits for recovery of immovable property
(ii) Suits for partition of immovable property;
(iii) Suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of mortgage of or charge upon immovable property
(iv) Suits for determination of any other right to or interest in immovable CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 6 of 9 property; and
(v) Suits for torts to immovable property 6.6 Other suits: Section 20 Section 20 provides for all other cases not covered by any of the foregoing rules. All such suits may be filed at the plaintiffs option in any of the following courts, viz
(i) Where the cause of action, wholly or partly arises; or
(ii) Where the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain; or
(iii) Where there are two or more defendants, any of them resides or carries on business of personally works for gain, provided that in such cases
(a) either the leave of the court is obtained; or (b) the defendants who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain at that place acquiesce in such institution.
6.7 Bare perusal of the provisions reflects that the present suit filed for recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of lease deed does not fall within ambit of the provisions of Section 16. The present suit is simpliciter a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Admittedly, the property in issue herein is an immovable property located in Gurgaon, but it cannot be said that the adjudication on the issue herein in any way touches upon the right or interest in the immovable property. Possession already handed over to the plaintiff; plaintiff is not seeking recovery of possession. Hence, the provisions of CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 7 of 9 Section 16 CPC would not attracted in the present case. The suit of the plaintiff is premised on the provisions of clause (a) and (b) of Section 20 of CPC, where indisputably, defendant has its registered office at Golf Links, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of this court. 6.8 Moreover, no objection to the territorial jurisdiction has been taken by the defendant in the cross examination of PW1. No suggestion regarding (a) lack of jurisdiction, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction,
(b) defendant not residing, or (c) carries on business from its registered office in Delhi are put forth to the witness during cross examination thereby admits and concedes to the jurisdiction of this court and the objections cannot be sustained.
6.9 Further, evident to note clause 30 of the lease deed Ex.Pw1/1 incorporates the Arbitration clause as well as exclusive jurisdiction clause vide which it is specifically agreed that courts in New Delhi alone will have jurisdiction in the present matter. Therefore, now to contend that Delhi court have no jurisdiction is devoid of any merits.
6.10 Now coming to the question of interest, plaintiff has claimed pre litigative interest alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 18 %. There is no clause in the agreement or any understanding between the parties nor any evidence has been led in this context to demonstrate that the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18%, therefore, the case of the plaintiff limited to interest @ 18 % stands partly rejected. However, taking note of the fact that CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 8 of 9 the prevalent rate of interest the transactions and the relation between the parties, the interest @ 9% on the outstanding amount from the date of handing over of possession in my opinion is reasonable and justified.
The issues are accordingly stands decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief Thus, In view thereof, considering the above discussed facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff has proved its case and is entitled to a decree in his favour and against defendant the for a sum of Rs.9,40,000/ along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from dated 03.07.2016, i.e. dated of handing over the possession, till the date of its realization.
Cost of the suit is awarded to plaintiff.
Suit stands disposed off.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Anil Antil) Today on 24.10.2017 ADJ05, South East, District(SE) Saket Court, New Delhi CS No. 398/17 M/s Vishnu Manglani Vs. Ms Iyogi Technical Services page no. 9 of 9