Delhi District Court
Saurabh Ahuja vs Sewa Singh on 12 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
ADDITIONAL. DISTRICT JUDGE -02,
WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT010026972017
Civ DJ no. 336/17
CNR No. DLWT01-002697-2017
Saurabh Ahuja
S/o Late Sh. Naresh Ahuja
R/o E-4/6A, 2nd Floor,
Model Town-II, Delhi
also at Plot no -2,
Aggarwal Square Plaza,
DDA Market, Parwana road,
Pitampura, PS Mangolpuri,
Delhi.
. . . Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr Sewa Singh
S/o Sh. Labh Singh.
2. Mr. Dalvinder Singh.
S/o Sh. Sewa Singh.
3. Ms Harsimrat Kaur
W/o Sh. Sewa Singh.
All residents of 62,
Rama Road,
New Delhi-110015.
. . . Defendants
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 23
Date of institution of the case : 29.03.2017
Date on which reserved for judgment : 23.11.2023
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: : 12.12.2023.
THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 11,62,549/- ALONG
WITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 11,62,549/- along with pendente lite and future interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER HIS PLAINT:
2. According to the plaint, the case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that Sh Saurabh Ahuja, is the director of company named Always Dry India Pvt. Ltd having its office at Plot no. 2, Aggarwal Square Plaza, DDA Market, Parwana Road, Pitampura, Delhi and the plaintiff's residence is at E-4/6A, 2 nd Floor, Model town, Delhi.
3. It is averred by the plaintiff that in order to expand the business of the company, the plaintiff wanted space on rent at Rama Road for opening showroom and in the month of September 2016, the plaintiff approached the defendants through CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 23 Sh Kataria, a property dealer, who acted as a middle man for entering into an agreement with the defendants for taking a portion of property no. 62, Rama Road, Delhi (ground floor and basement) at monthly rent of Rs. 6,30,999/- (rupees six lac thirty thousand nine hundred ninety-nine only) and the tenancy was to be commenced from 01.10.2016 as agreed.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 6,30,999/- was paid to the defendants by the plaintiff by way of three cheques i.e. cheques bearing numbers 000045, 000046 and 000047, all dated 20.09.2016, drawn on HDFC Bank, in favour of Sh. Seva Singh , Sh. Dalvinder Singh and Smt Harsimrat Kaur for Rs 2,10,333/- each.
5. It is further averred by the plaintiff that on 22.09.2016, the above-said cheques were encashed by the defendants but despite getting the payment, the defendants intentionally and willfully did not hand over the possession of the tenanted premises and has committed breach of the agreement.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants have got no right to retain the said amount and are liable to return the said amount to the plaintiff and the defendants are jointly and severely liable to return the said amount.
7. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he had sent two legal notices dated 06.01.2017 and 30.01.2017 to the defendants and the said notices were duly received by the defendants but they failed to return the said amount and also did not give any reply to the said notices.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 238. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants are liable to return the above-said amount along with interest @ 12 % per annum from 20.10.2016 to 20.02.2017 for five months amounting to Rs. 31,550/-.
9. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants have failed to hand over the possession of the premises, even after taking rent from the plaintiff and they are liable for damages/mesne profits as the plaintiff had made arrangements for opening the showroom at Rama Road, Delhi and had also recruited staff and made arrangements for the same and has suffered monetary loss. It is further alleged that defendants are also liable for damages for mental agony and physical sufferings and due to which the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 5 lac from the defendants.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS AS PER THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT:
10. It is contended by the defendants that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has failed to produce any agreement whatsoever between the parties to the present suit which ascribes liability on the defendants in the manner as is being alleged by the plaintiff and further averred that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.
11. It is further contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands and the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 23 court. It is further contended that despite paying the advance rent to the defendants, the plaintiff got the possession of the premises for alterations as per the plaintiff requirement and specification.
12. It is alleged in the written statement by the defendants that the plaintiff approached the defendant no. 1 and 2 for taking property in question on rent and the plaintiff has paid Rs. 6,30,999/- as an advance rent.
13. It is alleged in the written statement by the defendants that the rent of the premises was agreed and accepted by the plaintiff @ Rs. 6,30,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. It is further contended that the plaintiff has assured that written agreement shall be executed during the proceeding period.
14. It is alleged in the written statement by the defendants that amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- was given by the plaintiff with request to make some alterations in the premises as per the use of the plaintiff. It is further averred that on 17.10.2016, the architect of the plaintiff has sent mail to this effect with drawings and after making an advance payment for alterations, the plaintiff got engaged in the preparation of his marriage to be solemnized in October, 2016.
15. It is alleged in the written statement by the defendants that after demonetization, the plaintiff neither approached nor paid further rent to the defendants and the amount which was received by the defendants was spent by the defendants in the alterations of the premises as per request and specification of the CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 23 plaintiff.
16. It is further alleged in the written statement by the defendants that the plaintiff has concealed true facts and the defendants had made changes/alterations in the premises as per requirement of the plaintiff but subsequently after demonetization, the plaintiff refused to pay further rent and other expenses which were incurred in alternations by the defendants and the defendants are entitled to recover damages and losses and reserves their right to file appropriate counter claim against the plaintiff.
17. Plaintiff has also filed replication to the written statement, filed by the defendants and reiterated the contents of his plaint and denied all the allegations of the defendants.
18. Vide order dated 14.09.2017 following issues were framed.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of Rs. 11,62,549/- against the defendant? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest, if so, at what rate and period? OPP.
4. Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? OPD.
5. Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
6. Whether plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts? OPD.
9. Relief.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 23EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
19. To prove his case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses i.e. PW-1/plaintiff himself and PW-2, Sh. P. Raja.
20. On 18.05.2018, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-1/A. In his affidavit, the plaintiff has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and relied upon documents i.e. Legal notice (Ex P-1) and statement of account of HDFC bank showing clearance of cheques (Ex P-2).
21. On 18.05.2018, Sh. P. Raja, appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-2/A. In the affidavit, PW-2 has supported the testimony of PW-1. In his affidavit, the plaintiff has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence by giving his statement in the court on 22.01.2019 and the case was fixed for leading DE on behalf of the defendants.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
22. On 20.12.2019, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex DW-
1/A. In the affidavit, DW-1 has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the written statement and relied upon documents i.e. copy of e-mail with drawings Mark A and thereafter, the defendant closed his evidence.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 23FINAL ARGUMENTS
23. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and ld. counsel for the defendants and have perused the entire record including pleadings, documents, and testimony of the witnesses examined in the court on behalf of both parties.
ISSUE -WISE FINDING
24. My issue wise findings are as under: -
Issue no.(1) and Issue no. (4).
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of Rs.
11,62,549/- against the defendant? OPP.
4. Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? OPD.
25. Both issues are inter-connected and taken up together. The burden to prove abovesaid issues no 1 is upon the plaintiff and issue no. 3 is upon defendants. In order to prove the issue no. 1, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and Sh. P. Raja as PW-2.
26. The plaintiff/PW-1 has deposed in the court that in order to obtain a space at Rama Road for opening showroom, he has approached the defendants through a middle man, Mr Kataria and rent of the property in question was fixed @ Rs 6,30,999/- per month and the tenancy was to be commenced CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 23 from 01.10.2016. The PW-1 has further deposed that he has paid amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- to the defendants by way of three cheques issued in favour of all the three defendants for an amount of Rs. 2,10,333/- each.
27. PW-1 has further deposed that the said amount was paid by him as an advance rent for one month and the said cheques were encashed by the defendants on 22.09.2016.
28. PW-1 has further deposed that despite receiving the payment of advance rent of Rs. 6,30,999/-, the defendants intentionally and will fully did not hand over the possession of the said premises to the plaintiff and has committed breach of agreement.
29. PW-1 has further deposed that he had sent two legal notices dated 06.01.2017 and 30.01.2017 to the defendants and the same were duly received by the defendants but despite that the defendants have failed to return the abovesaid amount.
30. PW-1 has further deposed that he had made arrangements for opening the showroom at Rama Road, Delhi and had recruited the staff and had made other arrangements and due to non- delivery of the possession of the premises in question, the PW-1 has suffered monetary loss for which defendants are liable to compensate him and he further deposed that he had to take another premises bearing no. A-16, Plot no. 16, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase -I Delhi on rent @ Rs. 5 lac per month and is running his outlet since last 6 months.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 2331. During his cross examination, PW-1 has deposed that he had given three cheques on the account of his company as per requirement expressed by the defendants and he has issued the cheques as the premises in question was shown to him by D-1 and D-2, who claimed themselves to be owner of the said property.
32. During his cross examination, PW-1 has deposed that the advance rent paid was rental amount for one month only, and which had to start after the possession handed over to him.
33. The defendants have admitted regarding handing over of cheques by the plaintiff but their contention is only to the point that the cheques in questions were not towards the rent but were towards structural changes to be carried out by the defendants as per requirement of the plaintiff.
34. The defendants have admitted regarding receiving of legal notice sent by the plaintiff in February,2017, which is Ex P1.
35. PW-2 has deposed in his affidavit that the defendants were approached through Sh. Kataria for taking property in question on rent and monthly rent was decided to the tune of Rs. 6,30,999/- and the tenancy was to be commenced from 01.10.2016.
36. PW-2 has further deposed that amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- were paid to the defendants by way of three cheques which were encashed by the defendants on 22.09.2016.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 2337. PW-2 has further deposed that on 01.10.2016, when he went to take the keys of rental premises, he was told that some construction was going on and defendants sought some time.
38. PW-2 has further deposed in the court that he along with PW-1 and other employees of the company visited the tenanted premises several times for taking possession but possession was not handed over to them by the defendants for one reason or another reason.
39. PW-2 has further deposed that as the defendants have failed to deliver the rental possession of the premises, they had to take another premises on rent i.e. A-16, Plot no. 16, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase -I Delhi, about 6 months back.
40. In order to prove their defence, the defendants have examined only one witness i.e. DW-1, who is one of the defendants.
41. DW-1 deposed in his affidavit that the plaintiff approached him and the defendant no. 2 for taking the property in question on rent through one property dealer and the plaintiff agreed to take the premises at a rent of Rs. 6,30,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges.
42. DW-1 further deposed that the plaintiff has assured them that the written agreement shall be executed during the proceeding period. DW-1 further deposed that the plaintiff had handed over three cheques amounting to Rs. 6,30,000/- with the CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 23 request to make some alterations in the premises as per use of the plaintiff and the architect of the plaintiff has sent mail to this effect with drawings on 17.10.2016.
43. DW-1 further deposed that the advance amount was given by the plaintiff for making alternations in the premises as per his requirements and the DW-1 started the said alternations as per the drawings sent by the architect of the plaintiff and the architect of the plaintiff had also visited and looked after the alternations.
44. DW-1 further deposed that he had done the said alternation through Raj Mistri and spent almost Rs. 5 lac on the said alternations.
45. DW-1 further deposed that in October, 2016, the plaintiff was engaged in his marriage and after demonetization, the plaintiff neither approached nor paid any further rent to the defendants.
46. DW-1 further deposed that the amount which was received by the DW-1 from the plaintiff has already been spent in the alternations of the premises as per requirements, request and specification of the plaintiff.
47. During his cross examination, DW-1 deposed that he had agreed to give ground and first floor of the property on rent to the plaintiff but the rent was never settled. He further deposed that he had not given the possession of the premises.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 2348. During his cross examination, DW-1 deposed that the sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- was paid in the name of Sh. Sewa Singh, Sh. Dalvinder Singh and Smt Harsimrit Kaur.
49. During his cross examination, DW-1 deposed that the amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- was not in respect of advance rent for one month but was for change of construction.
50. During his cross examination, DW-1 deposed that he had not executed any agreement before carrying out the said bathroom construction work.
51. The fact of approaching the defendants by plaintiff for taking the property in question on rent has been admitted by defendants in their written statement as well as in the testimony of DW-1.
52. It is admitted by the defendants that they have received the payment of Rs. 6,30,999/- in the written statement but during cross examination DW-1 deposed that amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- was received by the defendants. The contention of the defendants are only to the point that the payment of Rs. 6,30,999/- was not towards advanced payment of rent rather this payment was made for making structural changes in the property as per the requirement and use of the plaintiff.
53. During cross examination DW-1 deposed that the defendants have received amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- from the plaintiff whereas in the written statement defendants have mentioned that they have received Rs. 6,30,999/- from the CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 23 plaintiff. The plaintiff also deposed in court regarding making of payment of Rs. 6,30,999/- to the defendants by way of three cheques and the said testimony is also corroborated by the bank account statement of the plaintiff Ex P-2, therefore, it is held that plaintiff has made payment of Rs. 6,30,999/- to the defendants.
54. It is the case of the plaintiff that monthly rent of the property was fixed Rs. 6,30,999/- whereas the defendants is alleging that the monthly rent of the property was fixed Rs. 6,30,000/-. In the opinion of this court, it does not make any difference on deciding issue of the present case as to whether monthly rent was fixed Rs. 6,30,999/- or it was fixed Rs. 6,30,000/-.
55. PW-1 and PW-2 has deposed in the court that the monthly rent was fixed Rs. 6,30,999/- and the contention of the plaintiff is also corroborated with the admission of the defendants in the written that they received payment of Rs. 6,30,999/- from the plaintiff and the said payment is also reflected in the bank account statement of plaintiff Ex P-2. The defendants have also admitted the receiving of the legal notice sent by the plaintiff in which monthly rent is mentioned Rs. 6,30,999/-. Defendants have not brought any evidence to rebut the evidence of plaintiff that the rent of the premises was fixed Rs. 6,30,000/- and not Rs. 630999. In view of the above-said facts, it is held that the monthly rent of the premises of question was fixed @ Rs. 6,30,999/-.
56. The main issue in dispute in the present case is that the amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- received by the defendants was CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 23 towards advance payment of rent or it was given for making structural changes in the property in question as per requirement and use of the plaintiff and cost of making structural changes had to be borne by the plaintiff and the defendants has spent the amount, given by plaintiff for making structural changes of the property in question.
57. In the written statement, defendants alleged that despite paying the advance rent to the defendants, the plaintiff got the possession of the premises for alternation as per plaintiff's requirement and specification, however, during cross examination, DW-1 deposed that "since I had not given the possession of the premises, the question of agreeing to the rent never arose". It is an elementary rule that a party litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent position in court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to detriment of his opponent. From the above-said testimony of DW-1 and PW1, it is proved that the defendants have not given the possession of the property in question to the plaintiff.
58. The DW-1 deposed in his affidavit that " the deponent has done the said alteration through Raj Mistri and spent almost Rs. 5 lac on the said alteration". The defendants have not placed any documents to substantiate their plea of spending amount of Rs. 5 lac on the alteration. Even, defendants have neither attached any photograph of the premises in question, undergoing repair/construction nor examined the alleged Raj Mistri through whom they alleged to have made alterations. Even the address of that Mistri has also not been mentioned by the defendants. The defendants have not attached any invoice regarding purchasing CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 23 material for making structural changes in the premises in question. The defendants have not given the details as to how the amount was spent for making alterations in the premises and also have not given details of the structural changes made by them. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of defendants regarding spending amount of Rs. 5 lac on the alteration, their plea of spending amount of Rs. 5 lac cannot be believed. The defendants have failed to prove the fact of spending Rs. 5 lac, on making structural change in the premises in question.
59. It is also highly improbable that the tenant would agree to bear the expenses of huge amount i.e. Rs. 6,30,999/- before even taking the possession and before entering into a written agreement. As per normal course of events, it is the landlord, who has to bear the expenses of any alternation made in the property before handing over the possession of the same to the tenant unless otherwise agreed. Also, keeping in mind the fact that no period of tenancy was fixed between the plaintiff and defendants and without fixing the term of tenancy, it is unbelievable that the plaintiff would spend amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- for the alteration of the property.
60. In the written statement, the defendants themselves have mentioned the amount received by them as an advance rent. The plaintiff has sent legal notice to the defendants, demanding amount of Rs 6,30,999/- claiming it to be advance payment of monthly rent, along with damages from the defendants. The defendants have admitted the receiving of said legal notice but despite receiving legal notice, the defendants have not sent reply to said legal notice. If the defendants have not received Rs.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 236,30,999/- as advance monthly rent, rather received it for making structural changes in the premises and said expenses had to be borne by the plaintiff, then the defendants would have replied the said legal notice mentioning their contentions.
61. On the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has proved that he has paid an amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- to the defendants as advance monthly rent and not for making structural changes in the premises in question. The defendants have not able to prove the fact that the amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- was given by the plaintiff not as advance monthly rent but for making structural changes in the property in question and the expenses of said alteration had to be borne by the plaintiff.
62. The burden to prove issue no. 3 is upon the defendants. The defendants have admitted that the plaintiff had approached them for taking the premises on rent and paid an amount of Rs. 630999/- to them and the written contract was to be executed between plaintiff and defendants later on. Contract can be oral as well as written. From the above facts, it is clearly proved that there is privity of contract between plaintiff and the defendants.
63. In view of the above said observation, it is held that the plaintiff has proved that he has made payment of Rs. 6,30,999/- to the defendants as an advance monthly rent and he is entitled to recover this amount from the defendants.
64. The plaintiff has claimed total amount of Rs. 11,62,549/- from the defendants. The plaintiff is claiming Rs.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 236,30,999/- paid by him as an advance monthly rent, Rs. 500000/- as damages and Rs. 31,550/- as an interest @ 12 % per annum from 20.10.2016 to 20.02.2017.
65. Section 73 of Indian Contract Act is applicable in the present case for calculating damages for breach of contract. Sect 73 of Indian Contract Act states that: -
"When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it".
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
66. As per section 63 of Indian Contract Act, the plaintiff can recover damages which naturally arises to him in the natural course of things from breach of the contract. Damages here means contract price less market price, on the date of breach of the contract. If the plaintiff is claiming damages on the basis of special circumstances, then such special circumstances must be communicated to the other party, at the time of entering of the contract otherwise he cannot claim damages due to special circumstances.
67. In a case tiled as H. J. Baker and Bros. Inc. Vs. The Minerals and Metals Trade Corporation Ltd. (MMTC), [Civil CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 23 Appeal No(S). 2437 of 2010, The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under: -
" 20. It is undeniable that the measure of damages, per Section 73 of the Contract Act, is the difference between the price at which goods sell at the market place on the date of breach, and the contract price. As observed in Murlidhar Chiranjilal where goods are to be bought and sold the"
"damages has to be calculated as they would naturally arise in the usual course of things from such breach. That means that the respondent had to prove the market rate at Kanpur on the date of breach for similar goods and that would fix the amount of damages, in case that rate had gone about the contract rate on the date of breach." We are therefore of opinion that this is not a case of the special type to which the words "which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it" appearing in Section 73 of the Contract Act apply. This is an ordinary case of contract between traders which is covered by the words "which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach" appearing in Section".
68. In this case the plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 5 lac from the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff had made the arrangements for opening the showroom at Rama Road, Delhi and had also recruited staff and made the arrangements for the same and has suffered monetary loss. It is further alleged that defendants are also liable for damages for mental agony and physical sufferings and due to which the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 5 Lac from the defendants.
CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 2369. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove the above said facts and hence failed to prove as to what arrangements he had made and how many persons he had recruited and how much monetary loss he had suffered. Moreover, the above said special circumstances were also never communicated to the defendants, at the time of entering into the contract by the plaintiff with the defendants. At the most, the plaintiff is entitled for damages, which naturally arose to him, in the natural course of things from the breach of the contract. The plaintiff has not brought any evidence on record to the effect that he had to take another premises of same description in the same vicinity on higher rent, due to breach of the contract by the defendants. Rather, in his examination, the PW-1 has deposed that he had taken another premise bearing no. A-16, Plot No. 16 at Mayapuri Industrial Area, on rent @ Rs. 5 Lac per month. So, as per the evidence of the plaintiff, he has paid less rent from the monthly rent of property in question. Hence, plaintiff has not suffered any damages due to breach of the contract and therefore he is not entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 5 lac as damages from the defendants.
70. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants are liable to return the above-said amount along with interest @ 12 % per annum from 20.10.2016 to 20.02.2017 for five months amounting to Rs. 31,550/-.
71. As far as claim of interest @ 12 % per annum is concerned, it appears to be little bit excessive in absence of any evidence led by plaintiff in this respect. Keeping in mind, the prevailing rate of interests and nature of transaction, it would be CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 23 proper and reasonable to grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Hence, it is held that plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 9 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- for the period from 20.10.2016 to 20.02.2017, amounting to Rs. 18930/-.
72. In view of the abovesaid observations issue no. 1 and 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Finding on Issue No.5
5. Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
73. The burden to prove issue no. 5 is upon the defendants. The defendants despite receiving advance monthly rent has failed to deliver the possession of the premises to the plaintiff and they have also not returned the advance monthly rent to the plaintiff despite several requests made to them by the plaintiff and legal notice was also issued to the defendants demanding monthly rental amount along with damage and interest. Hence, it is proved that the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit. In view of the above observation, issue no. 5 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Finding on Issue No. 22. Whether plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest, if so, at what rate and period? OPP
74. The Burden to prove issue no. 2 is upon the plaintiff. From CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 23 the above said facts and observations, it is proved that the defendants have failed to deliver the possession of the premises in question despite receiving advance monthly rent of Rs.6,30,999/-, from the plaintiff and they further failed to return the monthly rent of Rs. 6,30,999/- to the plaintiff despite demands made by the plaintiff for return of the same, hence, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is held entitled for interest on the said amount of Rs. 630999/-from the date of filling of the suit till its realization. Keeping in mind the prevailing rate of interests and nature of transaction and Section 34 CPC, it would be proper and reasonable to grant pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount i.e. Rs 6,30,999/-.
Finding on Issue No.6
6. Whether plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts? OPD.
75. The burden to prove issue no. 6 is upon the defendants. The defendants have not led any evidence to prove that the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
76. In view of the above-said findings and observations, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost to the extent that the CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 23 plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- as principal amount along with interest @ 9 % per annum on the amount of Rs. 6,30,999/- from 20.10.2016 to 20.02.2017, from the defendants. The plaintiff is further entitled to recover pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount i.e. Rs 6,30,999/- till realization of the amount, from the defendants. Decree sheet with cost be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signedSHIV by SHIV KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2023.12.12 16:19:36 +0530 Announced in open Court (SHIV KUMAR) today on 12.12.2023 ADJ-02, West Distt.Tis Hazari courts Delhi.CS No. 336/17 Saurabh Ahuja Vs Sewa Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 23