Delhi District Court
Cs No. 318/17 M/S M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. ... vs . Rimmi Rajora on 23 May, 2023
CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 318/17
Unique ID No. DLNE03-002148-2016
In the matter of:
M/s M. G. Mobiles India Pvt Ltd
Having its Registered Office at
1400, Modi Tower,
98, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
..................Plaintiff
Vs.
Rimmi Rajora
W/o Sh. Vikash Rajora
Shop No. C- 2nd, Main Market,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053
Also at
Plot No. 23-B, Gali No. 9,
Rajora Market, Budh Bazar, 150 Ft Road,
Shalimar Garden Extension-1,
Shahibabad, Ghaziabad-201005
..............Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.07.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 20.05.2023
Date of Decision : 23.05.2023
Final Decision : Partly Decreed
Suit for recovery of ₹ 1,48,300/- along with pendente-lite & future
interest @ 24% per annum
Page No. 1 of 23
CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora
JUDGMENT
1. This is a simple suit for recovery of ₹ 1,48,300/-.
Brief Facts 2(a). Brief facts as per plaint are that the plaintiff, which is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, entered into a Lease Agreement dated 23rd April 2014 with the defendant in respect of a shop bearing no. C- IInd, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053 (hereinafter referred to as the "Demised Premises") for a period of three years w.e.f 1st April 2014 @ ₹ 58,900/- per month. According to the provisions of the said Lease Agreement, the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of ₹ 1,20,000/- as security deposit to the defendant. This security was an interest free security refundable at the time of vacating the suit property. The plaintiff also had to pay rent @ ₹ 58,900/- on the date of the commencement of the lease.
(b). It is averred that as per the terms of lease agreement, the plaintiff deposited the required security of ₹ 1,20,000/- with the defendant and also paid ₹ 58,900/- towards rent on 23rd April 2014.
(c). It is further averred that the lease was to expire by efflux of time on 31.03.2017 and the plaintiff decided not to renew the lease deed and communicated this to the plaintiff vide letter dated 17.03.2017 and requested the plaintiff to refund the security amount of ₹ 1,20,000/-. However, the same was not refunded.
Page No. 2 of 23CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora The lease expired by efflux of time on 31.03.2017 and the plaintiff handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the defendant and requested her to refund the security deposit amount. However, the defendant sought some time to refund the security amount on the pretext that cheque book has been misplaced.
(d). It is averred that the defendant had also purchased an Apple iPhone6s Plus (64 GB) bearing IMEI No. 355735072609649 for a sum of ₹ 75,000/- vide invoice no. 00027-27070273 in the name of her husband Sh. Vikas Rajora on credit basis from the plaintiff and asked to deduct that amount from the amount of rent. It is averred that after adjustment, an amount of ₹ 28,300/- is still due and payable by the defendant towards the purchase of the aforesaid mobile phone.
(e). It is further averred that the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 29th April 2017 to the defendant demanding security deposit of ₹ 1,20,000/- along with ₹ 28,300/- i.e., the balance unpaid price of the iPhone. Despite service of legal notice, the defendant had neither refunded the security deposit nor paid the balance price of the iPhone. Hence the present suit.
3. Pursuant to the summons issued by the learned predecessor Judge, the defendant appeared and filed her written statement wherein she admitted the letting out of the demised premises in question to the plaintiff. However, she denied receipt of any amount Page No. 3 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora towards security. Para 4 of the parawise reply of the written statement reads as under:-
"4. That the contents of Para 4 of the plaint are partly admitted and partly denied. It is admitted that lease deed was executed, but it is denied that the security amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant...".
As far as payment of mobile phone is concerned, she in para 8 of the parawise reply of the written statement stated as under:
"It is submitted that no payment was due against the said I phone purchase. It is further submitted that the defendant has already made the entire payment of said I phone".
Issues
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned predecessor Judge:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs.
1,48,300/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with interest @ 24% per annum with monthly rests on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,48,300/- from the date of filing of the present suit till realization? OPP Page No. 4 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora
2. Relief.
Evidence 5(a). To prove the case, the plaintiff examined its Director Mr. Ankit Massey as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
a. Certified copy of the Board resolution dated 01.07.2019 : Mark X1 b. Lease agreement dated 23.04.2014 :
Mark X2 c. Retail invoice dated 12.06.2016 : Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) d. Sattement of account of plaintiff : Ex.PW1/4
e. Certificate u/sec. 65-B Evidence Act :Ex. PW1/5
f. Letter dated 17.03.2017 sent to the defendant : Ex. PW1/6 g. Legal Demand Notice dated 26.04.2017 :Ex. PW1/7
h. Postal Receipt dated 29.04.2017 : Ex.PW1/8 Page No. 5 of 23
CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora i. Copy of Board resolution of Mr. Dharmender Sharma : Mark A. He during his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendant stated that he is the Director in the plaintiff's company since 2018 and has no knowledge as to when the plaintiff company M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt Ltd was incorporated and came into existence. He stated that he was serving the plaintiff company in the capacity of a team leader since 2013 till he became Director in year 2018 and at the time of filing of present suit, there were four Directors in the plaintiff company namely Ms. Neghna Modi, Sh Dharmender Sharma, Sh. Vinod Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Garg. He stated that plaintiff company is a registered company, registered with ROC concerned, however, has not filed the certificate of registration of said company with the ROC concerned in the present matter. He denied the suggestion that the said company is not duly registered with the ROC concerned or that the said company is even not registered with the ROC concerned.
He stated that he is not aware about the rent of the property at the time of initial tenancy due to lapse of time. He admitted the suggestion that he is not aware about the rate of rent at the time of vacation of the suit property and that he was not present at the time of execution of rent agreement nor the rent agreement bears his signatures. However, he denied the suggestion that he was not aware about the security amount deposited by the plaintiff company. He stated that as per his knowledge the security amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was deposited at the time of starting of the tenancy. However, he could Page No. 6 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora not tell the exact date when the security amount was deposited. He admitted the suggestion that no document relating to bank transaction qua depositing of the security amount has been placed on record. He denied the suggestion that no security amount was ever deposited or that for the said reason no document pertaining to the same has been placed on record. He stated that in the year 2016, he used to sit in the office at Nehru Place looking after the business of South Delhi in the year 2016. He stated that he did not visit the suit property in the year 2016. He stated that he did not have knowledge as to whether husband of the defendant purchased the mobile from the plaintiff company in the year 2016. He denied the suggestion that no security was deposited by the plaintiff company with the defendant nor there is any due/part payment on account of purchase of mobile or that he has filed a false suit against the defendant or he was not deposing falsely.
(b). The defendant has not examined any witness despite availing numerous opportunities. Her evidence was closed vide oder dated 25.11.2022. Thereafter, an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC was filed on her behalf, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.05.2023.
Arguments 6(a). It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that defendant has not denied the execution of the lease deed dated 23.04.2014. As per the lease deed, the demised premises were let out to the plaintiff for a period of three years at the rent of ₹ 58,900/- per month. As per Clause Page No. 7 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora 4 of this lease deed, the plaintiff was to deposit a sum of ₹1,20,000/- as an interest free security deposit, to be refundable to the lessee at the time of vacation of the premises. The lease was not extended any further and the plaintiff handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the lessor i.e. the defendant but the the lessor has not refunded the security deposit as per the terms of the lease agreement.
(b). It was further argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant had also purchased an iPhone vide Invoice dated 12.06.2016 and asked the plaintiff to deduct that amount from the rent and after deductions, an amount of ₹ 28,300/- still remains due.
He, therefore, prayed that decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
7. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the lease deed is inadmissible in evidence being unregistred and no evidence could be given as to its terms. Without prejudice to above, he stated that the plaintiff has failed to prove that alleged security was deposited with the defendant at the time of inception of the tenancy. He had drawn the attention of the court towards para 4 and 5 of the plaint wherein it is stated that "4. ..the plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as interest free security deposit.........5. ........Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the defendant towards interest free security deposit...". However, as per the learned counsel for the defendant, the plaint is conspicuously silent in respect of the date when the plaintiff allegedly paid the security Page No. 8 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora amount to the defendant and the witness (PW1) also could not tell the date when the alleged security was desposited with the defendant nor could produce any document. He reiterated that the claim is not supported by any documentary or oral evidence.
And, as far as payment of the mobile phone is concerned, he stated that entire payment has already been made and nothing is due towrads the defendant qua the iPhone.
He, therefore, prayed that suit may be dismissed with heavy costs.
8. In reply, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that security amount was paid at the time of starting of tenancy. However, he failed to show any document or receipt in support of his contention.
9. I have the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the file carefully.
Issue-wise findings
10. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs. 1,48,300/- in favour of the Page No. 9 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora plaintiff and against the defendant along with interest @ 24% per annum with monthly rests on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,48,300/- from the date of filing of the present suit till realization? OPP
11. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
The issue has two parts. Therefore, I intend to bifurcate the issue into two parts i.e. (a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of alleged security deposit of ₹ 1,20,000/-?, and (b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of balance amount of ₹ 28,300/- towards purchase of iPhone?
12. Now let us exmine whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of security of ₹ 1,20,000/- from the defendant?
13(a). As per the plaint, the demised premises was let out to the plaintiff by the defendant for a period of three years vide lease deed dated 23rd April 2014 on a rent of ₹ 58,900/- per month with an interest free security deposit of ₹ 1,20,000/-.
Execution of the lease deed has been admitted by the defendant in her written statement. However, she has denied having received the security amount as alleged by the plaintiff.
Page No. 10 of 23CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora 13(b). Perusal of the ease deed shows that it was a lease of immovable property for a period of three years.
13(c)(i). Under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. It reads as under:-
107. Leases how made - A lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. All other leases of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Where a lease of immoveable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee:
Provided that the State Government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immoveable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by Page No. 11 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora oral agreement without delivery of possession."
13(c)(ii). As per section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, such a lease is compulsorily registrable. It reads as under:-
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.--(l) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:--
(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent"
13(d). However, in the case at hand, Mark X2 is an unregistered document, therefore, the same cannot be looked into in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. It reads as under:-
49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.--No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall--Page No. 12 of 23
CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.] 13(e). It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that proviso to Section 49 Registration Act, 1908 permits use of unregistered document/s for collateral purpose. Thus, according to learned counsel for the plaintiff unregistered lease deed can be considered for determining whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of interest free security deposited at the time of inception of the tenancy?
13(f). It is well settled that unregistered lease can be looked into for collateral purposes.
Page No. 13 of 23CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora 13(g). A Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Modern Food Industres (India) vs. I. K. Malik & Ors report in 98 (2002) DLT 593 while dealing with unregistered lease deed held as under:-
"13........The Supreme Court in the case of Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Ratiram, Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1966, decided on 28th January, 1969, reported in U.J. (S.C.) 21 (69), page 86 observed that:-
"A document required by law to be registered, if unregistered, is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affecting immovable property, but it may be admitted as evidence of collateral facts, or for any collateral purpose, that is for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property.
14. Therefore, a document which requires compulsory registration is not admissible for want of registration to prove the terms of the lease. It is admissible only to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds the property. Therefore, even the proviso to section of the Registration Act is of no help to the appellant. At best the appellant can prove the nature of his possession but not the terms of the Page No. 14 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora lease. Admittedly creation of lease is not a collateral purpose nor the terms of the lease are collateral within the meaning of Section 49 of the Registration Act as held by Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chand v. Goverdhan Das AIR 1984 SC 413.
13(h). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case Keshav Metal Works & Anr. vs Jitender Kumar Verma {1994 (28) DRJ 206} held that "term" of a lease deed is not a collateral purpose. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
".......In tact the nature, character and user of possession, being not a term of the lease is a collateral purpos, hence can be looked into even if the lease deed is unregistered, in order to find out the purpose of letting. Under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, purpose of lease i.e. nature of tenant's possession being only a collateral matter, unregistered lease can he used to determine the same. Letting purpose is not a term of the lease deed. It is only the terms of the lease which cannot be looked into in an unregistered lease deed. The essential elements of the lease are
(i) the parties; (ii)the subject matter or immoveable property;
(iii) the demise or partial transfer;
(iv) the term or period; (v) the consideration or rent. But the Page No. 15 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora nature and character of possession does not. fall in the category of essential elements..
9..........This Court should place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri S. Sita Maharani (Supra) rather than on Rai Chand Jain's case.
Moreover, the terms of unregistered lease deed cannot be looked into even for "collateral purpose". "
13(i). A Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri 5 Sita Maharani And Ors. vs Chhedi Mahto & Ors, decided on 3 February, 1955, reported in AIR 1955 SC 328 while dealing with unregistered document held as under:-
"13. Since it was the case of the respondents that the settlement of the Raiyati interest with them had been reduced to writing, the 'Hukumnama' required registration. Since it was not registered, it is inadmissible and no evidence could be given as to its terms and the contents of Ex. D could not be used for that purpose, particularly as the 'Hukumnama' and the receipts in support of it have been found not to be genuine.
There is nothing on record to show
that the alleged admission
contained in Ex. D was founded on
any settlement other than this
'Hukumnama'.
Page No. 16 of 23
CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora
13(j). In the case at hand, Clause 4 of the Lease Agreement
reads as under:-
"4. Lessee pay Lessor Rs.
1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac Twenty Thousand only) by way of security Deposit (interest free) which lessor will refund to Lessee at the time of receiving physical possession of the Premises from lessee. it is understood by the parties that in the event of Lessor making default in refunding the Security Deposit as said above on expiry of the lease or its sooner determination, Lessee shall continue to occupy the premsies without any payment of future rent, for such period till the said Security Deposit is fully refunded by Lessor to Lessee".
13(k). A bare reading of the above "Clause" would make it clear that it was an important term forming part of the lease agreement and cannot be called a "collateral purpose". Therefore, such a Clause, namely, Clause 4 of the Lease Agreement in this case, cannot be looked into for purpose of recovery of security deposit.
13(l). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singer India Ltd. vs Amita Gupta {88 (2000) DLT 186} held that allowing the appellant to enforce the terms of an unregistered lease would be illegal. Relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
"7. If the contention of the Page No. 17 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora appellant is accepted, the mandate contained in Section 107 of the TP Act is clearly violated. The effect would be that even if, as per Section 107 of the TP Act, the lease of period exceeding one year (three years in this case) can be made only by a registered instrument, Section 53A of the TP Act would create a lease of three years period and give benefit/protection to the appellant. Can Section 53A of the TP Act be construed in a manner which would negate the provisions of Section 107 of the TP Act?
Section 107 of the TP Act, states the manner in which lease of immovable property from year to year or for term exceeding one year etc. is to be created. When legislature has intended a particular act to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all. Therefore, no such interpretation to Section 53A of the TP Act can be given which nullifies the condition prescribed by Section 107 of the TP Act. Section 53A and Section 107 are to be read harmoniously so that both the provisions are given their proper effect. For this purpose, one will have to read down the provisions of Section 53A to exclude such types of situations (like the present one) which would otherwise have the effect of nullifying the provisions of Section 107 of the TP Act. Reading in this manner, effect of offering enhanced rent after the initial expiry of the Page No. 18 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora lease period, would only be to legitimatize the possession. Otherwise, after the expiry of initial period of lease, appellant would have become unauthorised occupant of the demised premises. From that, however, it would not follow that, appellant acquires right to stay in the leased premises for another period of three years. This three years period can be available only if the lease is evidenced by written instrument which is duly stamped and registered and not otherwise. Therefore, in such a case tenancy would become month to month tenancy so long as the lessee enhances rent and lessor accepts the same. However, lessor shall have right to terminate such a tenancy in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the TP Act treating it as lease of immovable property from month to month.
8. There is yet another reason to take this view. Here we mention another statutory provision which comes in the way of the appellant namely Section 49 of the Registration Act. As per the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, a document which is compulsorily registrable and is not registered cannot be read into in evidence. Original lease deed executed between the parties is admittedly unregistered.Page No. 19 of 23
CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora The appellant is relying upon the clause of this very lease deed, which relates to renewal of the lease agreement by offering enhanced rent at the rate of 15 per cent over the original rent. When the lease deed is unregistered the aforesaid term in the lease deed is not admissible in evidence. The appellant cannot rely upon the same and contend that merely by offering enhanced rent after the expiry of original period, lease got extended by a period of three years. Accepting the contention of the appellant would amount to ignoring the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act. In fact by claiming renewal for another period of three years, appellant is trying to invoke the aforesaid term of unregistered lease. This is not permissible. Invoking such a term of lease cannot be said to be looking at a lease for collateral purpose. Such a case cannot be brought under the proviso to Section 49".
13(m). Therefore, part (a) of issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
14. Now I will take part (b) of issue no.1. It reads as under:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of balance amount of Rs.
Page No. 20 of 23
CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora
28,300/- towards purchase of
iPhone?
15(a). It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had
purchased an iPhone in the name of her husband vide Retail Invoice dated 12th June 2016/Ex. PW1/3 and asked to adjust the same from the amount of rent. After adjustment, a balance of ₹ 28,300/- still remains due and payable as per Statement of Accounts Ex.PW1/4.
The defendant in her written statement has admitted having purchased iPhone but has stated that entire payment has been made qua the said i-Phone and nothing is due and payable. Thus, the burden to prove alleged payment is on the defendant and if no evidence is produced by either side, it is the plaintiff who would succeed in view of section 102 Evidence Act, 1872. It reads as under:-
102. On whom the burden of proof lies- The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Illustrations
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond.
The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies.
If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as Page No. 21 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on B.
(b). PW1, in his evidence, has tendered Retail Invoice dated 12.06.2016/Ex. PW1/3 and Statement of Accounts/Ex. PW1/4.
Ex. PW1/4 shows as to how the amounts were received and credited and the balance due as on 14.03.2017. Further, during cross-examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that nothing is due on account of purchase of mobile.
As discussed earlier, the defendant, despite availing numerous opportunities, has not produced any defence evidence to establish her plea that entire payment qua the iPhone has beem made. Thus, she has failed to discharge the burden. As such, the plaintiff has made out a case for recovery of ₹ 28,300/-.
(c). The plaintiff has also claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. I am of the view that the rate of interest sought by the plaintiff is exorbitant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a line of judgments has held that in view of changed economic scenario where there has been consistent fall in rates of interest, Courts must in accordance with the changed circumstances grant lesser rates of Page No. 22 of 23 CS No. 318/17 M/s M.G. Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rimmi Rajora interest. (Ref: Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. vs. G. Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720).
Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest on the sum of ₹ 28,300/- at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till the realization of the sum from the defendant.
Issue No. 2: Relief
16. In view of my above findings, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ₹ 28,300/- is decreed against defendant with costs and interest @ 8% p.a., from the date of filing the suit till realization.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BABITAAnnounced in open Court BABITA PUNIYA Date: on 23rd day of May, 2023 PUNIYA 2023.05.23 15:39:00 +0530 (Babita Puniya) Senior Civil Judge N/E District, KKD/Delhi/23.05.2023 This judgment contains 23 pages and each page bears my signature.
BABITA Digitally signed by BABITA PUNIYA PUNIYA 15:39:14 +0530 Date: 2023.05.23 (Babita Puniya) Senior Civil Judge N/E District, KKD/Delhi/23.05.2023 Page No. 23 of 23