Delhi District Court
M/S S. N. Surinder Nath Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. K. S. Bakshi on 16 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. KULDEEP NARAYAN,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 18, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. - 93/14
Unique ID No. - 02401C0450792006
1. M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under
The Companies Act, 1956, having its office at
Nath Haveli, 420 Gitorni,
Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road,
New Delhi - 110 030.
Through its Director Sh. Anuj Nath
2. M/s Surinder Nath HUF
Through its Karta
Sh. Anuj Nath
S/o Late Sh. Surinder Nath,
Nath Haveli, 420 Gitorni,
Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,
New Delhi - 110 030.
.......... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Sh. K. S. Bakshi
S/o Sh. S. S. Bakshi
2. Smt. Meenu Bakshi
W/o Sh. K. S. Bakshi
3. Sanjit Bakshi
S/o Sh. K. S. Bakshi
All residents of: 20/48, Malcha Marg,
Chankyapuri,
New Delhi - 110 021.
.......... defendants
S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 1/16
Date of Institution : 24/05/2006
Date on which reserved for judgment : 21/03/2014
Date of decision : 16/04/2014
Suit for recovery of Rs. 11,95,281/-
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 11,95,281/- against the defendants on account of enhancement of rateable value by the New Delhi Municipal Council (for short, " NDMC" ) of the property i.e. first floor of property no. 20/48, Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110 021 (for short, " suit property" ) vide assessment order dated 06/12/1996, resulting in increase in the house tax of the suit property. The aforementioned increase in the house tax was the liability of the defendants to pay in terms of lease deed dated 02/11/1993.
2. The plaint of the suit is founded on the following facts; that the plaintiff no. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and Sh. Anuj Nath is its authorized Director. The plaintiff no. 2 is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which Sh. Anuj Nath is the " Karta" ; that a registered lease deed dated 02/11/1993 was entered into between the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendants with respect to the suit property which was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-; that it was categorically agreed that the defendants would keep the plaintiff indemnified and harmless against any claim regarding any increase of house tax, ground rent, imposition of any penalty, tax, fee action etc.; that the plaintiff no. 1 S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 2/16 surrendered the tenancy in favour of plaintiff no. 2, the owner / landlord of the suit property and vide letter dated 27/01/2013, the plaintiff no. 1 directed the defendants to attorn plaintiff no. 2 as the landlord. The defendants acted upon the said letter, paid the rent to plaintiff no. 2 vide Banker cheque no. 839594 dated 06/02/2003 drawn on Canara Bank, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi and, thus attorned plaintiff no. 2 as the landlord; that the defendants had made substantial additions and alternations in the suit property without obtaining prior sanction of NDMC which had impaired the value of the suit property, resulting in plaintiff no. 2 filing the petition for eviction of defendants U/s 14 (1) (j) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. An eviction petition was also filed against the defendants for sub-letting; that NDMC vide its assessment order dated 06/12/1996 enhanced the rateable value of the suit property against which several representations were made by the plaintiff, which were disposed off by NDMC vide order dated 26/08/2004, recording the fact that the rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month is collusive which could not be less then the rent being earlier paid i.e. @ Rs. 15,000/- per month and consequently fixed the rateable value of the suit property w.e.f. 01/04/1994. The plaintiff deposited the said amount with the NDMC; that in view of the enhancement of rateable value of the suit property, the house tax of the suit property was also increased, which is the liability of the defendants to pay in terms of the lease deed. After giving adjustment of the tax being paid on the rateable value which was to be paid @ Rs. 1,500/- the plaintiff had to pay an extra amount which worked out to be Rs. 11,95,281/- inclusive of interest thereon as detailed in Annexure-A; that the defendants is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 11,95,281/- towards principal amount and interest @ 18% per annum as detailed in Annexure-A which S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 3/16 he failed to pay despite repeated requisitions; that since the final assessment order was passed by NDMC on 26/08/2004, the liability of the defendants actually crystallized on 26/08/2004, though the payment relates to the increase in rateable value w.e.f. 01/04/1994; that the defendants has not made the payment of amount due till date, hence the present suit.
3. The defendants contested the suit by filing Written Statement of defence taking preliminary objections; that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable which is based on a lease deed dated 02/11/1993 which was for a period of nine years and the defendants exercised its right of renewal, has already paid nine years advance rent to the landlord, i.e. plaintiff no. 1. The defendants paid the amount of rent to the plaintiff no. 2 on the request of plaintiff no. 1 without attorning the plaintiff no. 2 as its landlord. The defendants have not carried out any structural alternations in the suit property and on the expiry of lease deed dated 02/11/1993 no fresh lease has been executed between the parties and the defendants are statutory tenant under The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; that there has never been any increase in house tax by NDMC and claimed amount is not payable by the defendants; that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff no. 2 and the defendants; that the suit property is lease hold property which stands in the name of M/s Faqir Chand Raghunath Dass of which Late Mr. Surinder Nath was one of the partners. The suit property was agreed to be let out in December, 1992 by M/s S.N. Surinder Nath Pvt. Ltd. to Sh. K. S. Bakshi, Mrs. Minu Bakshi and Mr. Sanjit Bakshi vide a lease deed for a period of five years w.e.f. 15/02/1993 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-. The defendants gave a S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 4/16 security deposit of Rs. 5 Lacs in cash to the landlord and also paid a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs by way of pay order; that, thereafter another lease deed was executed whereby the lease period was extended to nine years and as per demand of the landlord, the defendants paid an advance rent for nine years amounting to Rs. 1,62,000/- alongwith security deposit of Rs. 5 Lacs to the landlord, the plaintiff no. 1; that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the lease deed dated 02/11/1993 has expired in 2002 and therefore no right can be claimed on the basis of said expired lease. In reply on merits, the averments of the plaint have been denied and it is reiterated that the defendants have no liability to pay any amount as claimed by the plaintiff.
4. Vide order dated 19/04/2007, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount from the defendants as claimed? OPP.
3. If issue no. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount on account of interest, if so, at what rate for what period and to what amount? OPP.
4. Relief.
In support of its case, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Anuj Nath (PW1), Sh. Ishwar Dass Kashyap, Head Assistant, Recovery Section, Palika Kendra, NDMC (PW2), Mr. Lal Saheb Mishra, Clerk from S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 5/16 Standard Chartered Bank (PW3), Mr. Keshi Ram, Asstt. Manager, Union Bank of India (PW4), Sh. Sanjeev Santwani (PW5)and Sh. Rajnish (PW6).
5. In defence, the defendants got examined Sh. S. S.Jarry (DW1).
6. Vide order dated 03/10/2009,suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Ld. Predecessor Court.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred regular first appeal no. 516/09 before the Hon'ble High Court which was accepted vide order dated 08/11/2012 and the impugned judgment dated 03/10/2009 was set-aside. By the same order, the case was remanded back to this Court for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of final arguments. The petition for special leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed vide order dated 16/09/2013and it was directed to examine the materials available on record with regard to the applicability of Section 67 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short " the Act" ).
8. I heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Manish Makhija, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Anil Airi, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the material available on record.
9. With regard to the applicability of Section 67 of the Act, it is clear that neither there is any averment in this regard in the entire plaint nor any evidence was led by the plaintiff. There is no issue framed in this S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 6/16 regard as well. A perusal of the testimony of all the plaintiff witnesses also goes to show that there is not a single whisper with regard to Section 67 of the Act. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendants pertinently argued that Section 67 of the Act, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as admittedly none of the plaintiffs is an assessee in the NDMC records, whereas, for the applicability of Section 67 of the Act, as per section 66 of the Act, it is a pre-condition that the plaintiffs should be the person on whom the tax is levieable. Admittedly, M/s Faqir Chand Raghunath Dass is the assessee in the NDMC records on whom the tax in respect of the suit property is levieable. This fact is also apparent from the rectification order Ex. PW1/D and the House tax receipts Ex. PW1/F1 to Ex. PW1/F46, wherein the name of the owner of the suit property is shown as M/s Faqir Chand Raghunath Dass. The contentions of the Counsel for the plaintiffs in this regard with reference to Rule 2 & Rule 13 of order 6 CPC that the plaintiffs need not mention Section 67 of the NDMC Act in the plaint as there is a presumption of law in its favour, are not convincing. Suffice it to say that Rule 13 of order 6 CPC talks about the matter of fact which the law presumes to be in favour of a party to the suit which is not required to be mentioned in the pleadings. There is no question of any presumption of law being applicable to Section 67 of Act which is purely a question of fact and about which, the plaintiff was required to adduce evidence, ofcourse, firstly basing their suit thereon.
As mentioned earlier, vide order dated 08/12/2011 in RFA No. 516/09, Hon'ble High Court categorically observed that the cause of action in the present suit was not based on the entitlement of the plaintiff S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 7/16 to claim the difference of the property tax which is higher then the rent as per Section 67 of Act. It was also observed that there was no issue in the suit nor was there any pleadings regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff as per Section 67 of the Act. The SLP filed by the plaintiff in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court was dismissed vide order dated 16/09/2013 and therefore, the findings of the Hon'ble High Court in this regard have become final and binding on the parties to the suit which leaves no doubt that the present suit is not based on the entitlement of the plaintiff, to claim the difference between the amount of the property tax levied and the amount which would be leviable if the said tax was calculated on the amount of rent as per Section 67 of the Act.
10. Now, my issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation?
OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was placed on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the present suit basing their claim on an order of rectification dated 26/08/2004 (Ex. PW1/D) which was objected to by Ld. Counsel for the defendants as to its mode of proof. It is stated by the plaintiffs that vide assessment order dated 06/12/1996, the NDMC enhanced the rateable value of the suit property w.e.f. 01/04/1994 against which plaintiff made representations which were disposed off by NDMC vide order dated 26/08/2004 (Ex. PW1/D), thereby, fixing the rateable value of the property w.e.f. 01/04/1994, out of which rateable value of the S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 8/16 portions in occupation by the defendants was fixed, taking into consideration the rate of rent as Rs. 15,000/- per month as against Rs. 1,500/- per month being paid by the defendants earlier. Accordingly, due to the aforesaid enhancement of the rateable value of the property, the house tax of the demised premises also increased. The defendants were inducted as tenant in the suit property vide registered lease deed dated 02/11/1993, (Ex. PW1/C). The defendants were required under the aforesaid lease (Ex. PW1/C) to make good difference of the increase but the defendants did not pay the same, despite request and on account of the aforesaid enhancement, after giving adjustment of the tax being paid on the rateable value which was paid at Rs. 1,500/- per month, the plaintiff had to pay an extra amount which worked out to be Rs. 11,95,281/- inclusive of interest thereon i.e. the suit amount.
In short, the plaintiff's firstly, based their claim on the order of rectification (Ex. PW1/D), whereby the liability of the defendants was allegedly crystallized and secondly, for the enforcement of the liability of the defendants to pay the enhanced house tax as per lease deed Ex. PW1/C dated 02/11/1993. Admittedly, the assessment order dated 06/12/1996, by which the rateable value of the suit property was enhanced, was not filed on record by the plaintiffs. A bare perusal of rectification order Ex. PW1/D goes to show that the same is not final assessment order but is merely an order of rectification, wherein the name of the owner is shown as M/s Faqir Chand Raghunath Das. Vide rectification order Ex. PW1/D, the rateable value of the property was fixed w.e.f. 01/04/1994. The plaintiffs have also filed house tax receipts Ex. PW1/F1 to Ex. PW1/F46 to show the payment of house tax made to S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 9/16 NDMC. The aforesaid payment receipts pertains to different dates starting from 10/05/1994 to 12/12/2005. If the testimony of Sh. Anuj Nath (PW1) is assumed to be correct that he made the payment of the house tax of the suit property, it is clear that after the assessment order 06/12/1996, some payments were made with regard to the suit property.
There is no explanation furnished by PW1 why, if he made the payment of house tax after the assessment order dated 06/12/1996 was passed, he did not claim any such enhancement from the defendants within the period of three years from the date of such payments. There is no explanation at all, why the plaintiffs waited to file the present suit till the rectification order Ex. PW1/D was passed on 26/08/2004. In the given circumstances, the appropriate course for the plaintiffs to adopt would have been to pay the enhanced house tax, if any, and to claim the difference thereof from the defendants within the period of limitation. There is no evidence led by the plaintiff to show whether after rectification, some adjustment were made by the NDMC or not. In the afore discussed circumstances, there is no doubt that the suit to claim the difference of amount from the defendants should have been filed within the period of three years from the date of making payments of house tax to NDMC by the plaintiffs.
Further, the plaintiffs are seeking to enforce the obligations on the part of the defendants to pay any such increase in terms of lease deed Ex. PW1/C which admittedly had expired in the year 2002 and thereafter no fresh lease deed was ever executed between the parties to the suit. The suit was filed on 24/05/2006 i.e. after around four years from the expiry of lease deed. Therefore, in a way the plaintiffs are trying to enforce the covenants of an expired lease deed without there being any S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 10/16 basis for it. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that be it on the basis of rectification order Ex. PW1/D or the obligations of the defendants as per lease deed Ex. PW1/C, the claim of the plaintiffs is clearly time barred. The present suit for recovery filed on 24/05/2006 was filed by the plaintiffs after expiry of Limitation period. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount from the defendants as claimed? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue cause was also placed on the plaintiffs. To discharge the same, the plaintiffs got examined Sh. Anuj Nath as PW1, who deposed by way of affidavit Ex. PW1 and also relied upon the documentary evidence. As per his testimony, plaintiff no. 1 had let out the suit property to the defendants vide registered lease deed dated 02/11/1993 Ex. PW1/C at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-. It was one of the covenants of the lease deed Ex. PW1/C that the defendants would keep the landlord indemnified and harmless against any claim regarding any enhancement in house tax, ground rent, imposition of any penalty, tax, fee actions etc. PW1 further deposed that the plaintiff no. 1 surrendered the tenancy in favour of plaintiff no. 2 and vide letter dated 27/01/2003, plaintiff no. 1 directed the defendants to attorn the plaintiff no. 2 as landlord and to pay the rent to it. Acting upon the said letter, the defendants paid the rent to plaintiff no. 2 and thus attorned the plaintiff no. 2 as the landlord.
S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 11/16 The claim of plaintiff no. 2 being the landlord of the suit property is contested by the defendants and it is contended that the plaintiff no. 2 is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property and is stranger to the lease agreement Ex.PW1/C. In support of their contentions, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs relied upon A. K. Nayar Vs. Sh. Mahesh Chand, 2008 IX AD (Delhi) 296, Mahendra Raghunathdas Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2437, Imtiaz Ali Vs. Nasim Ahmed, 31 (1987) DLT 150 and Padmini Chandrasekharan Vs. R. Rajagopal Reddy, 1996 III A.D. (SC) 265 and argued that the absolute ownership is not to be established and an attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlord's rights. Further, once rents are being paid by the party, it was estopped to deny the title of the property. The Counsel also relied upon Ganga Ram Vs. Mohd. Usman, (1997) 13 DLT 204 to highlight that the landlord is entitled to recover the enhanced amount from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of tenancy.
Even if the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs are assumed to be correct, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to show that there was an enhancement in the rateable value of the suit property and consequent enhancement in the house tax levied upon, which the plaintiffs, being assessee in the NDMC records, had to pay to the NDMC. Admittedly, M/s Faqir Chand Raghunath Dass is an assessee in the NDMC records till date which is also appearant from the bare perusal of the rectification order Ex. PW1/D and house tax receipt Ex. PW1/F1 to Ex. PW1/F46.
S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 12/16 During his cross-examination, PW1 categorically admitted that there is no evidence to show whether there is any enhancement in the rateable value resulting in levy of increased house tax on the suit property. Admittedly, NDMC never raised any demands from any of the plaintiffs. There is practically no evidence available on record to show what was the rateable value of suit property on the date of execution of lease deed Ex. PW1/C, when the aforesaid rateable value was enhanced by NDMC or to what extent it was enhanced. PW1 also miserably failed to depose anything in this regard.
Interestingly, in support of their claim, the plaintiffs relied upon one statement of account purporting to be in relation with the defendants (Ex. PW1/E (colly)) which is a computer generated document. There is no certificate as stipulated Under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to take the statement of account Ex. PW1/E (colly) into consideration. Even, otherwise, as per the documents Ex. PW1/E (colly), the plaintiffs have shown the house tax to be paid by the defendants from 1994-1995 to 2005-2006. The suit amount i.e. Rs. 11,95,281/- as mentioned in the aforesaid statement is inclusive of the amount of house tax payable and the interest @ 24% per annum. On calculation, the principal amount of the house tax turns out to be merely Rs. 3,53,467/-, whereas the interest claimed is Rs. 8,41,814/-. There is not a single evidence available on record to show the entitlement of the plaintiffs to claim such inflated rate of interest @ 24% per annum. In fact, such claim of interest is without any basis and points out to the greed on the part of the plaintiffs only. It is also not the case of the plaintiffs that the entire amount of house tax as well as the interest @ 24% per annum thereon was paid to NDMC.
S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 13/16 It is also noteworthy here that despite the Counsel for the defendants taking objections as to mode of proof of rectification order Ex. PW1/D and statement of account Ex. PW1/E (colly), the plaintiffs did not lead any evidence so as to legally prove both the aforesaid documents. The plaintiffs got examined Sh. Ishwar Dass Kashyap as PW2 who merely produced the records of rectification order Ex. PW1/D alongwith statement of account Ex. PW2/A. He also deposed about the house tax receipts Ex. PW1/F1 to Ex. PW1/F47 prepared by the Accounts Branch and payments deposited in cash branch vide receipts numbers mentioned on each such receipts. The testimony of PW2 cannot be considered towards proof of rectification order Ex. PW1/D as he is not the author of the document. Therefore, both the documents i.e. rectification order Ex. PW1/D and statement of account Ex. PW1/E (colly) cannot be taken into consideration, having no sanctity in the eyes of law.
The plaintiff also got examined Sh. Lal Saheb Mishra as (PW3), Clerk from the Standard Chartered Bank who merely produced statement of account, covering letter and copy of cheque Ex. PW3/A (colly). He also deposed about the letter Ex. PW1/K having been issued from the Standard Chartered Bank in favour of M/s Surinder Nath (HUF). Admittedly, the statement Ex.PW3/A (colly) was not prepared by him. Similarly, Mr. Keshi Ram (PW4), Assistant Manager from Union Bank of India deposed about the document Ex. PW1/L having been issued from the bank Ex. PW4/A. He also produced the statement of account Ex. PW4/A which again admittedly was not prepared by him. The plaintiff next got examined Sh. Sanjeev Santwani as PW5 who was working as Accounts Manager with M/s I.N. Shroff Enterprises at 20/48, Malcha S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 14/16 Shopping Complex, Diplamatic Enclave, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. He deposed about the letter Ex. PW1/M and the amount shown thereon to have been deposited with NDMC on behalf of M/s Surinder Nath (HUF). In his cross-examination, however, PW5 stated that the detail mentioned in letter Ex. PW1/M are payment of amount to the NDMC on attachment of rent towards arrears of house tax. He admitted that no payment over and above the rent payable by them to the lessor was deposited to the NDMC in pursuance to the attachment order. Admittedly, PW5 is not the signatory to the lease deed Ex. PW1/C on behalf of M/s I.N. Shroff Enterprises with the lessor. Lastly, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Rajneesh as PW6 who was working as part time Accountant with M/s Surinder Nath (HUF). He deposed that he had prepared the statement of account Ex. PW1/E (colly) on the basis of house tax paid by M/s Surinder Nath for the year 1994-95 to 31/03/2006. In his cross-examination, PW6 stated that the books of amount of M/s Surinder Nath (HUF) were not handed over to him for the purpose of preparations of statement of account Ex. PW1/E (colly). He had also not gone through the accounts of M/s Faqir Chand Raghunath Dass. He had also not signed upon the statement of account Ex. PW1/E (colly). The testimony of all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses are of not much help to the plaintiffs. The documents produced by each of them were also not duly proved and the objections taken by Ld. Counsel for the defendants as to mode of proof could not be unsettled by the plaintiff.
In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs miserably failed to discharge the onus placed and accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 15/16 ISSUE NO. 3 If issue no. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount on account of interest, if so, at what rate for what period and to what amount? OPP.
In view of my findings on issue no. 2, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the suit amount as claimed from the defendants and accordingly, the plaintiffs are also not entitled to recover any amount of interest. This issue is also decided against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 4 Relief.
In view of my issue wise findings, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any amount from the defendants. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Dated: 16/04/2014 (Kuldeep Narayan)
Announced in open Court. Additional District judge-18, (Central)
Room No. 349, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
S. No. 93/14 M/s S. N. Surinder Nath Vs. K. S. Bakshi 16/16