Delhi District Court
M/S. Banswara Syntex Ltd vs Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Meena on 8 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG CHHABRA,
CIVIL JUDGE03,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO: 2325/2019
M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD.
HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BANSWARA, RAJASTHAN AND ONE OF THEIR BRANCH
OFFICES AT
401, 4th Floor, 2E/23, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI110055,
THROUGH THEIR DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
.... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.SH. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA, S/O LATE SH. HIRA LAL R/O JP183, GROUND FLOOR, MAURYA ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI110085.
SECOND ADDRESS:
SH. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA, S/O LATE SH. HIRA LAL, 2E/6, MOTI BHAWAN, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI110055.
2. M/S. NVR ASSOCIATES LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. NARENDRA KUMAR GABA, S/O LATE SH. PREM NARAIN GABA, R/O B3/804, SUNNY VALLEY APARTMENT, PLOT NO. 27, SECTOR12, DWARKA, NEW DELHI110075.
SECOND ADDRESS:
CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 1 of 9M/S NVR ASSOCIATES LTD.
2E/6, MOTI BHAWAN, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI110055.
...DEFENDANTS SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,25,744/ (RUPEES TWO LACS TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR ONLY) BY WAY OF REFUND OF SECURITY DEPOSIT AND AS COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE SUFFERED AND SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF AT THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANTS DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.07.2019 DATE OF DECISION : 08.03.2022 EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,25,744/ filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The suit has been filed by Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, Manager of plaintiff company.
2. The factual matrix of the matter, as culled out from the bare perusal of the plaint is as follows: That the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Plaintiff is having its yarn and fabric manufacturing unit at at Banswara, Rajasthan and its garments manufacturing units at Daman and Surat.
3. Defendant no. 1 is the owner landlord in respect of the premises comprising backside corner shop ad measuring 350 sq. ft. forming part of CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 2 of 9 property bearing no. 2E/6, Moti Bhawan, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi110022. Defendant no. 1 had let out the above said premises to defendant no. 2 and later on defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 jointly let out the above said premises to the plaintiff for commercial purposes.
4. The demised premises was let out to the plaintiff for a period of five years w.e.f. 01.11.2016 and lease deed dt. 11.01.2017 was executed and registered with the office of SubRegistrarIII, New Delhi. In case tenant was to vacate the premises after the locking period of two years, the lease was terminable by serving notice by intimation to the landlords by the tenant.
5. The agreed rent for the demised premises was Rs. 33,000/ per month, appropriated in the manner that Rs. 11,000/ per month was to be received by defendant no. 1 and Rs. 22,000/ per month was to be received by defendant no. 2 from the plaintiff. As per the condition, rental value by 10% was to be increased every year. In this manner, the monthly rent paid by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 was Rs. 13,200/ and Rs. 26,400/ to defendant no. 2 in the month of June 2019 respectively. At the end of June 2019, the demised premises was vacated by the plaintiff and possession was taken over by the defendants on 01.07.2019 from the plaintiff.
6. The defendants had taken an interest free security deposit of Rs.
99,000/ by means of cheque no. 05673 dt. 02.11.2016 and another cheque no. 056742 dt. 02.11.2016 both drawn on Punjab National Bank, Paharganj, Delhi in the name of defendant no. 2. to cover the deficit amount of rent amount to Rs. 2000/ after deducting TDS.
CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 3 of 97. The defendants acknowledged the receipt of the above said amount as security amount in the registered lease deed but they mentioned the same as having been received in cash.
8. Defendants have promised to refund the security deposit within a week from 01.07.2019. The plaintiff from time to time has been demanding the return of security deposit from the defendant since 01.07.2019, but they have not refunded the above said amount.
9. The defendants had assured the plaintiff that the demised premises were absolutely fit for operating the activities of garment showroom. Since, February/March 2018 the problem of seepage of water from the northern side wall of the premises had arisen from time to time causing dampness in the wall and defendants had also kept some sort of opening in the roof of the shop through which the water had fallen on the packed cartons of garments which were lying inside the shop and complaints were made to the defendants, but complaints went in vein. The above said problem i.e. Seepage from the northern side wall of the shop room had again cropped up in the month of November/December 2018 and defendants got the repairs done approximately within five or six days. Due to the presence of labour engaged by the defendants, the plaintiff had been disturbed and hampered from carrying on the business from the showroom conveniently thereof, there was substantial decline in the sales at the said showroom of the plaintiff and plaintiff suffered approximate loss of Rs. 15,000/ to 18,000/ per day.
In view of facts and circumstances narrated above the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,25,744/ (Rupees Two lacs Twenty Five Thousand and Seven Hundred and Forty Four Only) from the CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 4 of 9 defendants jointly and severally as per details given below:
(a) On account of the refund of interest Rs. 99,000/ free security deposit
(b) On account of damage to the garments Rs. 1,18,744/ as particularized in the foreign paragraphs
(c) On account of loss of business profit Rs. 8000/ during the period when the sewer system was being got rectified in the demised premise.
Total Rs. 2,25,744/
10. In the month of March 2019, the goods of the plaintiff had been found to have been damaged to such an extent that the same became unusable and unsaleable due to seepage and dampness, the defendant no. 1 had organized to divert the direction of flow of water of adjoining shop by installing some pipeline.
11. As a consequence of flow of water through seepage and dampness certain cartons of garments and various garments which were displayed alongside the northern side of showroom had been damaged by reason thereof the plaintiff had to suffer a loss of more than Rs. 1 lac.
Hence, the present suit has been filed with prayer that a decree may be passed for recovery of Rs. 2,25,744/ alongwith costs, pendente lite from the date of filing of the suit till its realization in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Notice of the suit was duly served upon the defendant. WS was filed CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 5 of 9 on behalf of defendant no. 1 and 2 wherein they denied the averments of the plaint. However, vide order dt. 12.10.2021 the defendants were proceeded Exparte.
13. Thereafter, plaintiff examined Sh. Om Prakash Sharma as PW1 whose affidavit of evidence is marked as Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. The same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. He also exhibited the following documents:
i) Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/20 i.e. twenty set of photographs.
ii) Ex. PW1/21 i.e. certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act.
iii) Ex. PW1/22 i.e. computerized extracts of day wise sales for the period of February and March 2018, November and December 2018, January 2019, November 2019 and December 2019.
iv) Ex. PW1/23 i.e. copies of statement of accounts for relevant periods, issued by Punjab National Bank Paharganj, New Delhi.
v) Ex. PW1/24 i.e. true copy of letter dt. 19.11.2016 along with 2 cheques no. 056743 and 056742 were delivered to the defendants is deexhibited and same is now marked as Mark I.
vi) Ex. PW1/25 i.e. bank record issued by plaintiff banker's regarding clearance of cheque for Rs. 99,000/ paid to the defendants banker's in clearing filed along with this affidavit evidence.
vii) Ex. PW1/26 i.e. certificate dt. 14.02.2020 issued by the PNB under the Banker's Book Evidence Act regarding payment of the said cheque from the account of the plaintiff.
viii) Ex. PW1/27 (OSR) i.e. true copy of power of attorney in favour of Sh. Om Prakash, Manager, Delhi Office issued by the plaintiff company.
ix) Ex. PW1/28 i.e. true copy of lease deed dt. 11.01.2017 between Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Meena, M/s. NVR & Associates Ltd. and M/s. Banswara CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 6 of 9 Syntex Limited.
x) Ex.PW1/29 i.e. communication dt. 31.05.2019 from plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 about vacating the premises was deexhibited and same was marked as Mark A.
xi) Ex. PW1/30 i.e. communication dt. 31.05.2019 from plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 about vacating the premises was deexhibited and same was marked as Mark B. Ex. PW1/31 i.e. communication dt. 01.07.2019 from plaintiff to the defendants regarding handover the keys of the demised premises was de exhibited and same was marked as Mark C.
xii) Ex.PW1/32 i.e. communication dt. 15.07.2019 from plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 regarding refund for security deposit amount of Rs. 99,000/ was deexhibited and same was marked as Mark D.
xiii) Ex. PW1/33 i.e. communication dt. 15.07.2019 from plaintiff to the defendant no. 2 regarding refund for security deposit amount of Rs. 99,000/ was deexhibited and same was marked as Mark E.
xiv) Ex. PW1/34 i.e. reminder communication dt. 20.07.2019 from plaintiff to the defendants regarding refund for security deposit amount Rs. 99,000/ was deexhibited and same is now marked as Mark F.
xv) Ex. PW1/35 (colly) covering inter office memo dt. 06.10.2018 from Delhi office to Daman office about forwarding of materials is deexhibited and same was now marked as Mark G. xvi) Ex. PW1/36 (colly) covering inter office memo dt. 11.05.2019 from Delhi office of Daman Office about forwarding of materials was de exhibited and same was now marked as Mark H. xvii) Ex. PW1/37 (OSR) i.e. copy of adhar card of Sh. Om Prakash Sharma Manager and Principal officer of the plaintiff was deexhibited and same was now marked as Mark J.
CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 7 of 9Thereafter, vide his separately recorded statement, Exparte PE was closed. The matter was then listed for Exparte final arguments.
14. Exparte final arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff were heard. Case file perused.
15. In Exparte suits, where defendant has not filed WS or does not appear to contest the suit, the plaintiff as well as the court proceeds on the basis that there was no real opposition/defence to put forth. Hence, the plaintiff is only required to prove a prima facie case, which in my considered view has been successfully done by the plaintiff in this case.
16. Plaintiff has duly proved Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/20 i.e. twenty set of photographs along with Ex. PW1/21 i.e. certificate under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. Photographs show that there was seepage and dampness in the suit property as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. Plaintiff has also duly proved Ex. PW1/23 which shows that an amount of Rs. 99,000/ was paid to defendant no. 2 on 19.12.2016. Plaintiff has also duly proved Ex. PW1/27 i.e. copy of power of attorney executed in favour of Sh. Om Prakash, Manager, Delhi by the plaintiff company. Plaintiff has also duly proved Ex. PW1/28 i.e. the true copy of the lease deed which corroborate the contents of the plaint. Plaintiff has also duly proved document Mark G and Mark H which show that the alleged damaged goods were sent by Delhi office of the plaintiff to manufacturing unit of garments at Daman for disposal thereof as may be deemed appropriate by the manufacturing unit at Daman. Plaintiff has also placed on record Ex. PW1/22 which shows the day wise sales for the period of February and CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 8 of 9 March 2018, November and December 2018, January 2019, November 2019 and December 2019 in order to prove that plaintiff suffered loss during the period when the sewer system was being got rectified in the suit property. As such, the entire evidence led by the plaintiff goes unrebutted and since defendants have chosen to remain absent, therefore, there is no reason for this court to disbelieve plaintiff''s version.
RELIEF
17. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit in hand is hereby decreed exparte with costs and plaintiff is hereby held entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,25,744/ (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. (simple interest) from the date of institution of the suit till its final realization, from the defendant.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 08.03.2022 (ANURAG CHHABRA)
CIVIL JUDGE03/C/THC
DELHI
Note:This judgment contains 9 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
(ANURAG CHHABRA) CIVIL JUDGE03/C/THC DELHI CS no. 2325/2019 M/S. BANSWARA SYNTEX LTD. VS. KULDEEP KUMAR MEENA Page 9 of 9