Delhi District Court
M/S Swagat Agro Private Limited vs The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) on 27 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS.NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WAKF TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Suit Number : 317/2009.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited
E-138, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
Through its Director
Mr.Rajesh Gupta.
.....................................................................................................Plaintiff.
Versus
1. The Assistant General Manager (Compl.)
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Chanakya Puri Telephone Exchange,
New Delhi.
2. The Assistant Director (CE)
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
................................................................................................Defendants.
Date of institution : 13.03.2009.
Date of conclusion of arguments : 27.08.2011.
Date of judgment : 27.08.2011.
Appearances: Mr.R.C.Tiwari and Mr.Rajeev Garg, counsel for the
plaintiff with Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Director of the plaintiff.
Ms.Rajni Chauhan, counsel for defendant number 1.
The name of defendant number 2 was deleted vide order dated
29.07.2009.
JUDGMENT
PLAINT
1. M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited, the plaintiff, has filed this suit for recovery against both the defendants, The Assistant General Manager (Compl.), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and The Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 1 of 17 ::-
Assistant Director (CE) Delhi Development Authority praying that a decree may be passed of suit value Rs.3,21,467.85/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against both the defendants. It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant number 1 was its tenant which had taken premises owned by the plaintiff i.e. Flat number 12, FF, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan (DDA Building), Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 on lease for the period 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 and there was a condition in clause number 2.3.2 in the lease deed dated 10.12.2001 that the defendant number 1 shall pay the maintenance charges of the flat. The defendant number 1 vacated the tenanted premises but did not make the payment of the maintenance charges from 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 regarding which the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant number 1 through various letters which were respondent to by defendant number 1.
SERVICE, WRITTEN STATEMENT AND REJOINDER
2. Summons of the case were served upon both the defendants and pursuant thereto both the defendants appeared and filed their respective written statements contesting the case wherein they have controverted and rebutted all the averments made in the petition. Defendant number 1 has claimed the plaint is hopelessly time barred. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder to the written statement of defendant number 1 reiterating and reasserting the averments made in the plaint.
DEFENDANT NUMBER 2
3. Vide order dated 29.07.2009 of the learned predecessor of this Court, the name of the defendant number 2 was deleted from the array of defendants.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 2 of 17 ::-
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 29.07.2009 of the learned predecessor of this Court, the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time.(OPD-1).
(ii) Whether the suit is maintainable for not being verified by the plaintiff as per provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.(OPP).
(iii) Whether any cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant number 1. (OPD-1)
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount of Rs.3,21,467.85/- as claimed by the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.(OPP)
(v) Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined Mr.Rajesh Gupta as PW1. Defendant number 1 has preferred not to lead any evidence.
TESTIMONY OF PW1
6. PW1 has filed his affidavit, Ex.PW1/1, in evidence as his examination in chief reiterating and reasserting the averments made in the petition. He has proved the following documents:
Ex.CW1/A-copy of the Resolution passed by Board of Directors of the plaintiff;
Mark X-photocopy of Lease Deed which was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant company;
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 3 of 17 ::-
Ex.CW1/B-postal receipt by which the letter dated 22.12.2004 Ex.CW1/B1 was sent;
Ex.CW1/B2-postal receipt by which the letter dated 19.01.2005 Ex.CW1/B3 was sent;
Ex.CW1/B4- receipt of the speed post by which the letter dated 21.01.2005 Ex.CW1/B5 was sent;
Ex.CW1/B6-copy of the letter dated 06.12.2006 which was delivered by hand in the office of defendant number 1; Ex.CW1/B7 to Ex.CW1/B11 are the acknowledged copies of challans vide which the money was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant number 2;
Ex.CW1/C1-letter dated 29.01.2007 received in the envelope Ex.CW1/C2;
Ex.CW1/D1-copy of the letter dated 26.02.2007 which was sent to the defendant number 1(in the affidavit there is a document referred to as CW1/D2 as the postal receipt by which the said letter was sent but there is no such postal receipt on record); Ex.CW1/E1-copy of the letter dated 25.07.2007 which sent to the defendant number 1;
Ex.CW1/E2 is the postal receipt;
Ex.CW1/F is the letter dated 10.06.2008 of the defendant number 1;
Ex.CW1/F1 is the envelope in which the said letter was received; Ex.CW1/G -copy of the demand notice dated 12.01.2009 Ex.CW1/H-, Ex.CW1/I and Ex.CW1/J are the postal receipts by which the said demand notice was sent.
7. In his affidavit filed as his examination in chief, PW1 has deposed that defendant number 1 was its tenant which had taken premises owned by the plaintiff i.e. Flat number 12, FF, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan (DDA Building), Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 on lease for the period 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 and there was a condition in clause number 2.3.2 in the lease deed dated 10.12.2001 that the defendant number 1 shall pay the maintenance charges of the flat. The defendant number 1 vacated the tenanted premises but did not make the payment of the maintenance charges from 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 regarding which Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 4 of 17 ::-
the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant number 1 through various letters which were respondent to by defendant number 1.
8. In his cross examination, PW1 has admitted that the present suit has been filed to claim maintenance charges from 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004. He has further admitted that the plaintiff company never demanded or reminded MTNL to pay the maintenance charges during the period MTNL remained in possession of the flat and the first time was at the time of taking over of possession by the plaintiff. He has admitted that from 1998 to January, 2006, the MTNL has not paid even a single penny towards maintenance charges volunteering further that the MTNL was supposed to pay the maintenance charges directly to the DDA as per the lease deed.
ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant number 1 at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. I have also carefully perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
10. After hearing the arguments and on careful perusal of the record, my findings on the issues are as follows:
ISSUE NUMBER 1:
11. Issue number 1 is............... Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time.(OPD-1).
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 5 of 17 ::-
12. I have considered whether or not the case is time barred. It is clear from the provisions of the Limitation Act especially section 14 that the limitation for the filing of a recovery suit is a period of three years.
13. However, sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act which have been bearing on the contentions read as follows:
"18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing - (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in re- spect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in re- spect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledg- ment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but sub-
ject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation- For the purpose of this section-
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact natures of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to en-
joy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right;
(b) the word "signed" means singed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf; and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be a an application in respect of any property or right.
19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy- Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duty authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made:
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 6 of 17 ::-
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment ap- pears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section
(a) where mortgaged land is in possession of the mortgagee, the re-
ceipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;
(b) 'debt' does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court."
14. In the judgment reported as J.P.Sreedevi v. P. Appu, AIR 1991 Kerala 76, it has been observed that:
"....He did not say that account of this he incurred any liability to the appellant or any such liability is subsisting order to operate as an acknowledgment under S. 18 of the Limitation Act for purpose of computing a fresh period of limitation from that date there must be acknowledgment of a subsisting liability which is already barred. It is true that the acknowledgment does not create a new right action but merely extends the period of limitation. It is not necessary that the statement should indicate the exact nature or the specific char- acter of the liability. But the words used in the statement must relate present subsisting liability and indicate existence of a jural relation- ship between parties such as that of a debtor and credit and the in- tention to admit such jural relationship even through a promise to pay is necessary. It is not necessary that the intention should be in express terms, it can be implication also from the nature of the ad- mission and the surrounding circumstances mere statement that the appellant's ornaments were sold for the repair works without any admission of liability on that account cannot operate as an ac- knowledgment at all. The fact is that even if Ext.A-1 is accepted as containing a valid acknowledgment, it will not help the appellant because even then the suit is out of time."
15. Similar observations have also been made in the judgment re- ported as S.C. Gupta v. Allied Beverage Co. Pvt. Ltd., 163 (2009) Delhi Law Times 495.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 7 of 17 ::-
16. It is necessary to understand the meaning of acknowledgement and period of limitation before proceeding further.
17. The acknowledgment and period of limitation have been explained inn the judgment reported as Susheel Saran & Anr. vs Director of Advertising & Visual Publicity & Ors. 1989(17) DRJ, wherein it has been observed as follows:
According to Article 113 of the Limitation Act the period of Limitation for a suit for which no period of limitation is provided, is three years when the right to sue accrues.
The question in this case, therefore, is when the right to sue accrues. As to accrual of the right to sue, the counsel for the plaintiff refers to AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1433(Gannon Dunkerley and Co.Ltd. v. The Union of India), wherein the Court said that.''In our judgment, there is no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit, and its infringement, or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right.'' The clear and unequivocal right of the plaintiff to be paid for the display for the kiosks is infringed in the instant case when the bills submitted by the plaintiff were returned by the State of Bihar vide Ex.D.11 on 16.5.76. It is from 16.5.76 that the period of three years will begin to run. It is also clear from the documents which have been filed in this case, mainly Ex.P.W.1/1, Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.7 that there is acknowledgment within the meaning of explanation to Section 18 of the Limitation Act in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also referred to some other cases which are 1960 Supreme Court 333 (Mst.Rukmabai v.Lala Laxminarayan & others), 1961 Supreme Court 808 at page 810, for showing that the period of limitation begins to run from the date when the right asserted is threatened, or infringed. In this view of the matter, what is stated above, I hold that the suit is within time. Issue no.2 is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff.
18. Similarly, in the judgment reported as Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 8 of 17 ::-
Federation Ltd. and Others, (2005) SCCR 84, the period of limitation and acknowledgment have been elaborated as follows:
According to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of liability made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom such right is claimed made before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of such right has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgment was so signed. It is well settled that to amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication.
The statement providing foundation for a plea of acknowledgement must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the acknowledgement must indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor. The intention to attempt such jural relationship must be apparent. However, such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words. A clear statement containing acknowledgement of liability can imply the intention to admit jural relationship of debtor and creditor. Though oral evidence in lieu of or making a departure from the statement sought to be relied on as acknowledgement is excluded but surrounding circumstances can always be considered. Courts generally lean in favour of a liberal construction of such statements though a acknowledgement should not be inferred where there is no admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning See: Shapoor Freedom Mazda vs Durga Prosad Chamaria & Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1236 and Ms.Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co.Ltd. Etc. v. The Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. 1969(1) SCR 951. So long as the statement amounts to an admission , acknowledging the jural relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from the person making the admission or that on an account being taken something may be found due and payable to the person making the acknowledgement by the person to whom the statement is made.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 9 of 17 ::-
The two letters dated 29.03.1977 and 30.07.1977(Exhibits 8 and (0 clearly acknowledge the amount of Rs.2 crores having been received by the Federation from the Food Corporation of India whether by way of advance or by way of deposit. The letters also indicate that the amount of two crores was by way of advance or deposit against paddy procurement. This is admission of jural relationship of buyer and seller which stood converted into relationship of creditor and debtor on the failure of the principal transaction. However, the acknowledged liability is sought to be disowned by submitting that on an account being taken nothing would be found due and payable by the plaintiff to the Federation. Disputing the liability to repay the amount acknowledge to have been received does not dilute the fact of acknowledgement insofar as Section 18 of the Limitation Act is concerned. The two letters have the effect of extension the period of limitation prescribed for filing the suit and calculated from the date of the latter of the two letters, i.e. 30.07.1977 the suit filed on 30.05.1980 was well within the period of limitation.
19. Turning to the case in hand, it has been argued on behalf of plaintiff that all the averments regarding the claim of the plaintiff have been proved in the evidence of PW1 including all the relevant documents and there is nothing material in the cross examination of the witness. The case is not time barred as it can be seen from the documents proved by the plaintiff especially the letters issued by the defendant number 1 that it has acknowledged the liability to make the payment of the maintenance charges for the period 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the defendant that the petition is time barred as the case was filed on 13.03.2009 while the recovery of the amount claimed is for the period 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 and beyond the period of three years of limitation.
20. As per the evidence of PW1, the maintenance charges from Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 10 of 17 ::-
01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 are being claimed in the suit. From 1998 to January, 2006 the MTNL has not paid any amount towards the maintenance charges.
21. In order to show that the case is within limitation the counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the documents Ex.CW1/B1, Ex.CW1/B3, Ex.CW1/B5, Ex.CW1/B6, Ex.CW1/C1, Ex.CW1/D, Ex.CW1/E1 and Ex.CW1/7 submitting that the plaintiff had been corresponding time and again with the defendant number 1 and requesting it to make the payment and the defendant number 1 had acknowledged its liability but still had not made the payment due to which the present petition is filed within the stipulated period of limitation.
22. The counsel for defendant referring to the same documents has submitted that the exhibited documents are only the correspondence exchanged between the parties and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as an acknowledgment of the claim and therefore, the suit is not maintainable being filed beyond the period of limitation.
23. Some important extracts from Ex.CW1/C1 and Ex.CW1/7 are reproduced as follows:
Ex.CW1/C1-According to clause 2.3.2 of lease deed, MTNL was to pay for these charges as per bills raised by the society/builder. But no bills was received from these charges either from DDA or the owner."' Ex.CW1/F-DDA vide his letter No. "file No.F11(8)1994/CE/Pt/2837 dt.4.6.08'' has informed the MTNL that the copies of bank challans were not traceable. Now it is adviced by DDA to submit original copies of challan in DDA so Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 11 of 17 ::-
that payment could be verified by them.
Since the original copies of bank challan are available with you, it is therefore requested to please have necessary action for arranging to submit the verification certificate from DDA so that further action could be taken.
It is also requested to please supply alongwith a copy of demand note of DDA regarding maintenance charges i/r/o premises as mentioned above for the period of tenancy. The copy of demand note you had submitted alongwith your letter dated 6.12.06, is old one and not meant for the hired period w.e.f.7.9.98 to 6.9.04.
24. It can be seen from the letters issued by defendant number 1 to the plaintiff, as mentioned above, that the same are not just mere correspondence or letters asking for verifications and clarifications, as these are clear acknowledgment of the liability to make the payment to the plaintiff as per the lease deed. If there was no intention of the defendant number 1 to make the payment of the maintenance charges, then there was no occasion for defendant number 1 to ask for the details of the payments made by the plaintiff to the DDA, defendant number 2, and for supply of the copies of the challans and for seeking any verification. It is clear on perusal of the letters exchanged between the parties that the defendant number 1 has never denied the claim of the plaintiff but has only made queries of the maintenance charges in one way or the other which is constructive acknowledgment of the dues.
25. It is clear from the record, especially the lease deed, that the recovery was to be made after the lease period, if not deposited i.e. 01.09.2004 and the letters and correspondence was made prior to the passing of the period of limitation.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 12 of 17 ::-
26. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that as the defendant number 1 has admitted its liability through its letters, especially Ex.CW1/C1 dated 29.01.2007 and Ex.CW1/F dated 10.06.2008, the period of limitation for filing the suit for recovery stood extended and the case filed on 13.03.2009 is consequently within the period of limitation and is not time barred.
27. Accordingly, the issue number 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant number 1.
ISSUE NUMBER 2
28. Issue number 2 is.........Whether the suit is maintainable for not being verified by the plaintiff as per provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.(OPP).
29. Nothing is brought on the record which could show that the plaint has not been verified by the plaintiff as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC. It is clear on perusal of the plaint and the annexed affidavit that the verification is proper and as per law.
30. Therefore, the issue number 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant number 1.
ISSUE NUMBER 3 AND ISSUE NUMBER 4
31. Issues numbers 3 and 4 are being decided together as the same are inter-related.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 13 of 17 ::-
32. Issue number 3 is............Whether any cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant number 1.
(OPD-1)
33. Issue number 4 is..........Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount of Rs.3,21,467.85/- as claimed by the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.(OPP)
34. The plaintiff, in the plaint, has averred that the defendant number 1 was its tenant which had taken premises owned by the plaintiff i.e. Flat number 12, FF, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan (DDA Building), Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 on lease for the period 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 and there was a condition in clause number 2.3.2 in the lease deed dated 10.12.2001 that the defendant number 1 shall pay the maintenance charges of the flat. The defendant number 1 vacated the tenanted premises but did not make the payment of the maintenance charges from 01.09.1998 to 01.09.2004 regarding which the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant number 1 through various letters which were responded to by defendant number 1. The plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the maintenance charges along with the interest.
35. PW1 has also similarly deposed in his evidence and nothing is brought forth in his lengthy cross examination by defendant number 1 which could show otherwise.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 14 of 17 ::-
36. The plaintiff, in its evidence by examining PW1, has proved the challans, Ex.CW1/B7, Ex.CW1/B8, Ex.CW1/B9 and Ex.CW1/B10, which clearly show that a total amount of Rs.3,21,467.85 has been deposited by the plaintiff with the DDA which infact was required to be paid by defendant number 1 to the DDA as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed between the plaintiff and defendant number 1.
37. Also, the DDA, defendant number 2, in its written statement, in paragraph number 4 of its reply on merits has also admitted that a total amount of Rs.3,21,467.85 has been deposited by the plaintiff with the DDA vide challans.
38. As already discussed above while deciding issue number 1, defendant number 1 has admitted its liability and acknowledged that it was required to make the payment of the maintenance charges to the DDA, it is clear that the plaintiff has paid. The same are to be recovered from the defendant number 1. As per the observations made in the judgment reported as 2005 SCCR 84, to amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 18, it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication the judgment.
39. In the present case, as there is an acknowledgement by defendant number 1 of the liability to make the payment of the maintenance charges to the DDA, it is clear that there is a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and it is entitled to the recovery of Rs.3,21, 467.85 i.e. the maintenance charges which have been deposited by the plaintiff with the DDA.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 15 of 17 ::-
40. The plaintiff has been able to show its case only against defendant number 1 by producing the relevant documents regarding the admission of liability and extension of limitation for filing the plaint due to the acknowledgment and the liability of Rs.3,21, 467.85. As regards the rate of interest, I am of the considered opinion that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum appears to be arbitrary and on higher side and therefore, interest at the rate of 12% per annum should be fair and should be paid.
41. The defendant number 1 has not been able to shatter the veracity of the evidence of the witness of the plaintiff which consequently appears truthful. It is also not in dispute that the defendant number 1 has not complied with the clause 2.3.2 of the lease deed and deposited the maintenance charges for the lease period with the DDA. The evidence of the witness of the plaintiff and the documents produced and proved by him clearly shows that the rights of the plaintiff have been violated and it is entitled to decree of recovery of money. There appears to be no impediment in granting the relief to the plaintiff, as claimed in the suit, as regards only defendant number 1.
42. Accordingly, the issue numbers 3 and 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant number 1.
ISSUE NUMBER 5-RELIEF
43. Issue number 5 is the relief.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 16 of 17 ::-
44. As issues numbers 1 to 4 have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant number 1, the case of the plaintiff is successfully proved.
45. Consequently, in view of the foregoing reasons and discussion as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, a decree of Rs.3,21, 467.85 with pendent lite and future interest @ 12 % per annum from the filing of the suit till the realization is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant number 1.
46. There shall be no orders as to the costs. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared.
47. After doing the needful, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 27th day of August, 2011. ADJ-02, Wakf Tribunal, New Delhi.
Suit Number :317/2009.
Unique I.D.Number:02403C0060312009.
M/s Swagat Agro Private Limited versus The Assistant General Manager (Compl.) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and another.
-:: Page 17 of 17 ::-