Delhi District Court
M/S A.M. Infomatics Pvt. Ltd vs Love Chauhan on 21 December, 2024
In the Court of Shri Ashutosh Kumar, District Judge
(Commercial Court)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020
CNR No.DLWT01-002723-2020
M/s A.M. Infomatics Pvt. Ltd.
Having Its Registered Office At:
19, NWA, Club Road,
Punjabi Bagh Extension,
New Delhi-110026,
Through Its Director
Ajay Kumar Kathuria ...Plaintiff
Versus
Love Chauhan
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chauhan,
R/o BG-6/35, Ground Floor,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063
Also At:
Property No.19, Third Floor,
North West Avenue, Club Road,
Punjabi Bagh Extension,
New Delhi-110026
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 09-07-2020
Date of hearing of arguments : 16-12-2024
Date of decision : 21-12-2024
Plaintiff's counsel- Sh Kapil Gupta
Defendant's counsel - Sh Sermon Rawat
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.1 of 35
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for possession by eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, unauthorized use and occupation charges, interest, damages, permanent & mandatory injunction in respect of property no. 19, North West Avenue, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi 110 026 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), has been filed by the plaintiff through one of its Director Ajay Kumar Kathuria (authorized vide Board of Resolution dated 27-06-2020) against the defendant. However, during the course of hearing on 13.10.2022, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had claimed that the possession of the suit property was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff on 21-08-2020 and therefore relief nos. a, d & e (claimed in the prayer clause of the plaint) have become redundant. Accordingly, there was no longer any need to decide the present suit for the purpose of possession by eviction and hence no issue qua the same was framed.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that it is the lawful co-
owner & landlord of the part of the third floor in the property No.19, North West Avenue, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi-110026 (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises") and the same was given on rent to the defendant for commercial purposes of running a Gym under the name of "Dr. Force Gym", vide Registered Lease Deed dated 24-07-2017 CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.2 of 35 bearing Registration No.3373 in Book No.1 in Vol. No.3084 on pages 67 to 72, for a period of 1 year from 01.05.2017 to 30.04.2018, on the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed, contents of which are broadly as follows:
a. The rent was agreed at Rs.1,25,000/- per month + applicable taxes for a period from 01.05.2017 to 31.10.2017 and then Rs.1,60,000/- per month + applicable taxes for a period from 01.11.2017 to 30.04.2018. The rent was agreed to be paid on or before 1st day of each calendar month.
b. The defendant also agreed to pay all statutory dues during the period of lease comprising of electricity, water, etc., and further agreed to handover the NOC from the concerned departments at the time of vacation and handing over the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the said property to the Plaintiff.
c. It was also agreed that in the event of default of payment of rent by Defendants, the same shall be paid alongwith interest @24% to be calculated on day to day basis to be charged from 1st of concerned month and in the event of default or non-payment or delay of advance applicable rent for two consecutive months, the agreement will automatically stand cancelled and the defendant shall be under obligation to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession immediately to the plaintiff without any dispute.
d. It was also agreed that in the event the Defendant continues to occupy the premises after the expiry/termination of tenancy, then the Defendant shall monthly pay double of the last paid rent alongwith applicable taxes.
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.3 of 35
3. It is further averred by the plaintiff that right from the inception of tenancy, the intentions of the defendant was malafide as he started dilly-dallying in payment of the monthly rent, had been making payments in piecemeal basis, never tendered the rent within the stipulated period i.e. on or before 7th day (appears to be incorrect as the said date is mentioned as 1st in the lease deed) of each English calender month but always made payment belatedly and when the plaintiff tried to reason for the same, it was of no consequence. It is also averred that inspite of the same, the defendant continued to occupy the tenanted premises and the same came to an end by efflux of time on 30.04.2018, on which date as per the Lease Deed the last paid rent amount was Rs.1,60,000/- per month. It is also claimed that during tenancy, the defendant not only defaulted in paying rent on various occasions but also paid the same belatedly and thus the total outstanding rent as on 30.04.2018 was Rs.6,18,800/-, which was duly intimated to the defendant. It is further averred that upon expiry of the said lease period on 01.05.2018, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises but the defendant kept on dilly dallying in handing over of the vacant, peaceful & physical possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff. It is also claimed that at the relevant time the plaintiff had specifically told the defendant that in the event he does not CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.4 of 35 vacate & handover the physical and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises, then Clause 16 of the Lease Deed shall come into effect, in terms whereof the defendant shall be liable to pay double the last paid rent and shall also be liable to pay interest on the arrears of rent but the defendant continued to be in illegal and unauthorized use and occupation of the tenanted premises and despite promising to vacate the tenanted premises, failed to honour his commitments. Plaintiff has further claimed that in terms of clause 16 of the Lease Deed, the defendant was liable to pay double the amount of the last paid rent i.e., Rs.3,20,000/- per month, from 01.05.2018 and till filing of suit, amounting to Rs.83,20,000/- less the amount of Rs. Rs.2,10,000/-, paid by him as per his whims and fancies & in piecemeal and accordingly, an aggregate sum of Rs.87,28,800/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
4. It is further claimed that defendant had also issued eleven post dated cheques as per the details mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, in favour of the plaintiff against the partial discharge of his liability towards payment of outstanding rent & unauthorized use and occupation charges, and also assured that the said cheques on presentation shall be honored. However, on 11.03.2020 the defendant approached the plaintiff and asked it not to present the aforesaid cheques citing financial crunch and even lured the plaintiff by assuring that in the event plaintiff waits till CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.5 of 35
31.03.2020, then he would not only clear the entire outstanding amount but would also vacate the tenanted premises. It is further averred that though the plaintiff was not inclined to agree but owing to huge amount at risk and the lucrative option of retrieving its premises, had agreed to defendant's request.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that nothing as promised by the defendant happened and therefore the plaintiff approached the defendant on 31.03.2020 to pursue the matter and it was only on 01.06.2020 that the defendant asked the plaintiff to present the cheques and assured that the same would shall be honored on presentation & also that he shall clear the balance amount towards arrears of rent and unauthorized use & occupation charges and would also vacate the premises immediately. However, all the said cheques on presentation with plaintiff's banker, i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce (now merged with Punjab National Bank), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, got dishonored with the reason 'Funds Insufficient'.
6. The plaintiff has claimed that as on 30.06.2020, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.87,28,800/- (Rs.83,20,000 + Rs.6,18,800
- Rs.2,10,000) to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent and unauthorized use and occupation charges of the tenanted premises. Further, it is claimed that since the defendant was an unauthorized occupant in the tenanted premises w.e.f. 01.05.2018 therefore he was also liable to pay double the rental amount towards mesne CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.6 of 35 profits / damages to the plaintiff from the said date till the handing over of the physical vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the Plaintiff and also liable to pay agreed interest @ 24% per annum on the arrears of rent, unauthorized use and occupation charges and also towards pendentelite & future interest.
7. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 29-06-2020, plaintiff noticed some people going to third floor of the property and upon suspicion, he had seen the CCTV videos of past days and was shocked to see that the defendant had been carrying out gym activities in the tenanted premises from late in the evening till late in the night and immediately he confronted the defendant and asked him to stop doing so and also handed over a copy of the closure notice dated 26.02.2020 issued by South Delhi Municipal Corporation to him, told him that the authorities had asked him to close the gym activities, but the defendant became aggressive and threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences, in the event he raises the said issue again.
8. The plaintiff, inter-alia, had prayed for the following reliefs from this court:
b. pass a decree for recovery of arrears of rent in the sum of Rs.87,28,800/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till the date of actual realization, in favour of Plaintiff & against defendant, with further direction to the Defendant to clear all the statutory dues/liabilities including but not limiting to CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.7 of 35 Electricity, water, direct & indirect taxes (TDS & GST), etc.; c. pass a decree for recovery of mesne profits / unauthorized use & occupation charges @ Rs.3,20,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2020 till the date of vacation and handing over of the said property to the Plaintiff, in favour of Plaintiff & against defendant;
f. grant cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; & g. pass any other and further Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
9. The summons of the suit were sent to the defendant, and appearance was duly made on his behalf.
10. Defendant in the preliminary objections of its written statement, inter-alia, claimed that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as plaintiff's name had been struck off from the records of the Registrar of Companies and dissolved vide Public Notice No. ROC/Delhi/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated 08-08-2018 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India and therefore the plaintiff cannot file or pursue the present suit on the basis of extracts of board resolution dated 27-06-2020, passed by its Directors, authorizing Ajay Kumar Kathuria to sign documents / do other formalities, on its behalf, after its dissolution. Therefore, according to the defendant, neither the plaintiff company could have convened any board meeting after 08.08.2018 nor its purported directors could have passed any board resolution on 27.06.2020. It is further claimed that the plaintiff has not CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.8 of 35 approached this court with clean hands as it had concealed the fact that the tenanted premises was not a commercial property due to which the defendant could not get the requisite permissions and licenses from the government authorities to run his Gym. It is also claimed that the present suit is liable to be rejected as the lease deed dated 24-07-2017 is vitiated by fraud and the same cannot be used by the plaintiff to claim the existence of any commercial dispute between the parties.
11. On merits, the defendant has denied plaintiffs ownership of the tenanted premises for want of knowledge. In reply to para 2 of the plaint, the defendant has admitted the lease deed dated 24-07- 2017 but has claimed that plaintiff has played fraud upon them by concealing the fact that the tenanted premises was not meant for commercial purposes.
12. The defendant has denied that there was any delay in payment of the monthly rent by him to the plaintiff and claimed that the tenanted premises was plagued with various issues due to which he had to spend money to make it usable. He claimed that the tenanted premises did not have proper electrical wiring, which caused short circuits leading to fire outbreaks on various occasions, which resulted in substantial damage to the expensive gym equipments and the defendant got the wiring done inside the tenanted premises. It is further claimed that the overhead tanks and water pipelines installed on the terrace above the tenanted CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.9 of 35 premises regularly leaked, which caused huge problem of seepage resulting in constant foul smell, which effected the reputation of defendant's gym. Defendant also claimed that the lift installed in the building also did not work most of the time, which also lowered defendant's gym reputation.
13. Defendant admitted that he continued to occupy the tenanted premises even after expiry of tenancy due to efflux of time on 30- 04-2018, on which date as per lease deed the last paid rent amount was Rs. 1,60,000/- but denied that there was any outstanding arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 6,18,800/- as on 30-04-2018. It is claimed that after termination of lease deed dated 24-07-2017, the plaintiff had approached him and sought some time to renew the lease arrangement and also requested him for paying the rent in cash till signing of the new lease deed. Defendant has claimed that in August, 2018 Ajay Kumar Kathuria had approached him and requested him to pay the rent in cash at the existing rate of rent stating that the plaintiff company was facing some legal proceedings and was not in a position to sign a fresh agreement and plaintiff would prefer to keep the tenancy on month to month basis till the parties mutually decide to continue this arrangement and accordingly, the defendant kept paying rent in cash which was collected by Ajay Kumar Kathuria on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant has claimed that in fact after adjustment of the expenses borne by him towards improvements, renovation work CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.10 of 35 including laying down of electrical wires and water seepage treatments, the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 15 Lakhs to the defendant, which was required to be adjusted.
14. Defendant has further denied that upon expiry of lease deed on 01-05-2018, the plaintiff had requested the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises but the defendant kept on dilly dallying in handing over of the vacant, peaceful & physical possession of the same and also denied that plaintiff had told the defendant that in the event of him not vacating the tenanted premises, double rent would be charged. Defendant has further denied that he stayed in illegal and unauthorized use and occupation of the tenanted premises and that in terms of clause 16 of the lease deed, the defendant was liable to pay double the amount of the last paid rent i.e. Rs. 3,20,000/- per month from 1-05-2018 till date of filing of suit, amounting to Rs. 20,80,000/- and also denied that an aggregate sum of Rs. 83,20,000/- was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
15. Defendant has claimed that the 11 post dated cheques were handed over by him to the plaintiff at the time of execution of rent agreement dated 08-05-2017 as security cheques, which rent agreement was later cancelled and the parties had agreed that the same shall be treated as null and void and ineffective at the time of execution of lease deed dated 24-07-2017, which fact was also acknowledged in the lease deed dated 24-07-2017 and accordingly CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.11 of 35 the said cheques stood cancelled pursuant to cancellation of the said rent agreement. It is claimed that the plaintiff had given an impression to the defendant that he had destroyed the said cheques but later misused them against the defendant. Defendant has specifically denied that he had ever issued any instructions to the plaintiff to present the said cheques for encashment.
16. Defendant has denied that he has illegally retained a sum of Rs.
87,28,800/- and also got the said cheques dishonoured allegedly issued towards partial discharge of the outstanding liability and thus has made a wrongful gain for himself and caused wrongful loss to the plaintiff. Defendant has claimed that he vacated the premises on 31-03-2020. Defendant has specifically denied that as on 30-06-2020, he is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 87,28,800/- to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent and unauthorized use and occupation charges of the tenanted premises and on the contrary claimed that the rent was being paid in cash by him to Ajay Kumar Kathuria. Defendant also claimed that even otherwise the lease deed dated 24-07-2018 was vitiated by fraud and the plaintiff was liable to pay damages to the defendant to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs. Defendant categorically denied that he was in unauthorized occupancy of the tenanted premises with effect from 1-05-2018 and was thus liable to pay double the rental amount towards mesne profits / damages to the plaintiff. He denied that he was liable to pay arrears of rent, mesne profits / damages CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.12 of 35 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.
17. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement denying the contents of WS and reiterating the contents of the plaint. Plaintiff has vehemently denied that defendant made any payment to the plaintiff in cash.
18. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 13-10-2022:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.87,28,800/- alongwith electricity, water and tax charges and interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP
2.Whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits, unauthorized and occupation charges @ Rs.3,20,000/- w.e.f. 10.07.2020 till 21.08.2020? OPP
3.Whether the suit is not maintainable on the ground that Plaintiff Company has been struck off from the record of Registrar of Companies? OPD
4.Whether the lease deed dated 24.07.2017 is vitiated on the basis of fraud as alleged? OPD
5. Relief.
19. However, it appears that in issue no.1 the arrear of rent was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 87,28,800/- and the same shall be correctly read as Rs. 4,08,800/-. In issue no. 2, the mesne profits, unauthorized and occupation charges @ Rs. 3,20,000/- was wrongly mentioned to be w.e.f. 10-07-2020 to 21-08-2020 and hence the said period shall be correctly read as from the expiry of the lease deed by efflux of time i.e. from 1-05-2018 till vacation of suit property i.e. 21-08-2020 (as per admission of plaintiff).
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.13 of 35
20. In view of the same, issue nos. 1 & 2 are re-framed as under:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.4,08,800/- alongwith electricity, water and tax charges and interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits, unauthorized and occupation charges @ Rs.3,20,000/- w.e.f. 01-05-2018 till
21.08.2020? OPP
21. Since the changes made in the issues are merely arithmetical / typographical / clerical and the same are not going to cause any prejudice to the parties, therefore there is no requirement to lead any fresh evidences by the parties or addressing of further final arguments qua the same.
22. To prove its case, the plaintiff examined Ajay Kumar Kathuria, one of the Directors and Authorized Representative of plaintiff company, as PW-1, and vide his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW- 1/A, he deposed on the lines of plaint and deposed about the following documents:
(1) Board Resolution dated 27.06.2020 - Ex.PW1/1 (2) Copy of the Registered Lease Deed dated 24.07.2017 -Ex.PW1/2
(3) Emails dated 01.03.2018, 30.04.2018, 30.04.2018, 14.05.2018, 21.05.2018, 26.05.2018, 05.06.2018, 11.06.2018, 11.06.2018, 02.10.2019 & 04.10.2019- Ex.PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/13 (4) The Screen Shots of the videos- Ex. PW1/14 (5) The order dated 24.12.2020 passed by Hon'ble NCLT, Delhi in Appeal No. 244/252/ND/2020 - Ex. PW1/15.
(6) Letter-cum-Undertaking dated 24.04.2019 - Mark-A (7) Photocopies of Cheques issued by the defendant alongwith Return Memos - Mark-B (Colly) & CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.14 of 35 (8) The Closure Notice dated 26.02.2020 issued by South Delhi Municipal Corporation to Defendant - Mark-C.
23. PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the defendant.
24. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and two other witnesses viz. DW-2 Batti Lal Meena, Station Officer, Moti Nagar Fire Station, Delhi and DW-3 Prem Dutt Sharma, Office-in-Charge Building Department, MCD, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 were cross-examined bythe Ld Counsel for the plaintiff.
25. Vide his affidavit of evidence Ex. DW-1/A, defendant deposed on the lines of the written statement and deposed about the following documents:
(1) Original / copies of bills qua POP, plumber work, electrical fittings, hardware fittings, electrical appliances / equipments -
Ex.DW1/1-16, DW-1/18, DW-1/20 to Ex. DW-1/24, Ex. DW- 1/27, DW-1/28, DW-1/30 to Ex. DW-1/32 & Ex. DW-1/34 (2) Copy of bill dated 1-05-2017 for hardware fitting - Mark A (3) Copy of bill dated 27-05-2016 for electrical appliances- Mark B (4) Copy of bill dated 6-11-2018 for electrical equipment - Mark C (5) Copy of bill dated 6-11-2018 for electrical equipment- Mark D (6) Copy of bill dated 15-02-2019 for electrical equipment- Mark E (7) Copy of RTGS/NEFT acknowledgement of Rs. 5 lakhs by Kotak Mahindra bank dated 16-03-2017 - Mark F (8) Ex. DW1/35 is the closure Notice dated 26.02.2020 & (9) Ex. DW1/36 is the summons dated 01.04.2019.
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.15 of 35
26.I have heard the final arguments on behalf of the parties, perused the comprehensive written submissions filed on behalf of the parties and have also perused the judicial file.
27. During the course of final arguments, the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff had relied upon the following judgments in its support:
1. M/s S.M.I.L.E. Micro Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s Fathi Software (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. [C.R.P. (MD) No. 176 of 2023 dated 16.06.2023] [Paras 11 & 12]
2. Kaynet Finance Ltd Vs. Verona Capital Ltd. [AIR 2019 Bom. 298] [Paras 16, 16 & 23]
3. Bombay Gas Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Western Region & Ors. [MANU/MH/0984/1996], [Paras 4, 6 & 25]
4. United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 3] [Paras 10 to 13]
5. MTNL Vs. Suman Sharma [MANU/DE/3735/2010] [Paras 3 & 4].
6. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. Vs. Santosh Khosla [MANU/DE/1078/2012] [Para 8]
7.Rajesh Bansal Vs. A.S. Rastogi [RFA No.228 of 2013 dated 10.01.2014] [Paras 11 to 13].
8. GAIL (India) Ltd. Vs. Punj Llyod Ltd. [RFA (OS) (Comm.) No.06 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017] [Paras 28 to 36].
28. During the course of final arguments, the Ld. counsel for the defendant had relied upon the following judgment in its support:
1. Escorts Ltd Vs Sai Auto & others 42 (1990) Delhi Law Times, 446.
29. My issue-wise findings are as under:
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.16 of 35 ISSUE NO. 1 "1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.4,08,800/- alongwith electricity, water and tax charges and interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP"
30. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
31. The defendant in reply to para 2 of the plaint had admitted the contents of the corresponding para no. 2 of the plaint to the extent it relates to execution of the lease deed dated 24-07-2017 Ex. PW- 1/2. Thus, the contents of the said lease deed were admitted by the defendant.
32. Plaintiff in its plaint as well as affidavit of evidence of PW-1 has baldly claimed arrears of rent of Rs. 4,08,800/-, electricity, water charges alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till the date of actual realization from the defendant. However, the plaintiff has not provided any details thereof or any ledger account qua the same.
33. As regards, the stand of the defendant on the rental due and the expenses incurred by the defendant on renovation etc. of the suit property, relevant part is in para 9 of affidavit of evidence of DW- 1, is reproduced below:
"9. That I state and admit that during his stay in the Tenanted Premises, I regularly paid the rent. On many occasions, the Plaintiff asked for payment in cash citing tax-related issues and as and when asked, I paid the rent in cash. I further submit that I suffered various losses on account of short circuits and fire outbreaks, water seepage and problems CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.17 of 35 relating to the lift/elevator, and on such occasions, the Plaintiff showed his inability to carry out the necessary renovation work and therefore, Plaintiff and I mutually decided that I will carry out the necessary improvements, renovation work including laying down of electrical wires and water seepage treatments and adjust my expenses against the rent payable under the Lease Deed dated 24.07.2017. In this regard, it is submitted that therefore, for the Tenanted Premises, I did not have any outstanding as on 30.04.2018. To the contrary, after adjustment of the expenses borne by me towards improvements, renovation work including laying down of electrical wires and water seepage treatments, the Plaintiff was supposed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) to me which were required to be adjusted in parts/ installments every month and the amount of such adjustment was to be mutually decided every month. The agreed rent was paid regularly to the plaintiff and received by Mr. Ajay Kumar Kathuria on its behalf and therefore, when the Lease Deed dated 24.07.2017 expired, the parties herein decided that instead of renewing the lease, they will have a month to month tenancy with a rent of Rs 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) and an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifteen Thousand only) shall be adjusted against the rent payable under this arrangement. It was further decided that this amount shall be adjusted in installments every month and the amount of such adjustment shall be mutually decided every month. The agreed rent was paid regularly to the Plaintiff. (Copy of Bill dated 19.04.2017 by M/s Ganpati Timber & Plywood for CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.18 of 35 Rs. 12,395/- is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/1.) (Copy of Bill dated 22.04.2017 by M/s Ganpati Timber & Plywood for Rs. 18,747/- is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/2.) (Copy of Bill dated 28.04.2017 by M/s Ganpati Timber & Plywood for Rs. 10,252/- is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/3.) (Copy of Estimate dated nil for POP work for an amount of Rs.
27,130/ is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/4.) (Copy of Bill dated nil for POP work for an amount of Rs.
6,140/ is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/5.) (Copy of Bill dated 17.07.2014 issued by M/s Ganpati Timber & Plywood for Rs, 7,252/- is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/6.) (Copy of Bill dated 12.04.2017 issued by Ajay Plumber for an amount of Rs.
20,737/- is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/7.) (Copy of Bill dated 13.04.2017 issued by Ajay Plumber for an amount of . Rs. 5,605/ is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/8.) (Copy of Bill dated 14.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 3,960/- for electrical fittings is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/9.) Copy of Bill dated 17.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 1,440/ for electrical fittings is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/10.) (Copy of Bill dated 18.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 18,022/- for plumbing work is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/11.) (Copy of Bill dated 24.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 7,805/- for plumbing work is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/12.) (Copy of Bill dated 27.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 13,660/ for plumbing work is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/13.) (Copy of Bill - dated 27.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 10,240/- for electrical fittings is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/14), (Copy of' Bill dated 28.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 1,325/- for plumbing work is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/15), (Copy of Bill dated 30.04.2017 for an amount of Rs. 62,079/- for CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.19 of 35 plumbing work is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/16), (Copy of Bill dated 01.05.2017 for an amount of Rs. 4,040/- for hardware fittings is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/17), (Copy of Bill dated 27.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 54,000/- for electrical appliances is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/18), (Copy of Bill dated 27.05. 2017 for an amount of Rs.
69,000/- for electrical appliances is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/19), (Copy of Bill dated 27.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 34,500/- for electrical appliances is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/20), (Copy of Bill dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.
12,500/- for electrical appliances is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/21), (Copy of Bill dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 9,800/- for electrical appliances is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/22), (Copy of a Bill dated 18.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.
16,000/- for electrical appliances is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/23), (Copy of Bill dated 05.10.2017 for an amount of Rs. 58,000/- for electrical appliances is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/24), (Copy of Bill dated 06.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.
6,148/- for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/25), (Copy of Bill dated .06.11.2018 for an amount of Rs. 170/- for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/26), (Copy of Bill dated 11.10.2018 for an amount of Rs. 44,000/ for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/27) (Copy of Bill dated 04.12.2016 for an amount of Rs. 13,500/- for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/28), (Copy of Bill dated 15.02.2019 for an amount of Rs. 8700/- for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/29), (Copy of Bill dated 06.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 55,000/- for electrical equipment is CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.20 of 35 exhibited as Exhibit DW1/30), (Copy of Bill dated 25.05.2019 for an amount of Rs. 11,984/- for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/31), (Copy of Bill dated 23.07.2019 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/32), (Copy of Bill dated 06.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 6,148/- for electrical equipment is exhibited as Exhibit DW1/33)".
34. However, the vendors (from whom the material for renovation work was purchased) of the said purported expenses incurred by the defendant on renovation of the suit property, have not been examined in evidence and hence the said invoices have not been duly proved. Even if for arguments sake, the said bills/ invoices are deemed to be proved, still from the same it cannot be inferred merely on the bald testimony of DW-1 that the said goods were purchased qua renovation for the suit property or were actually used in renovation thereof. Also, neither in the lease deed Ex. PW-1/2 nor in any other document filed on record, it is mentioned that the plaintiff had agreed that any such renovation expenses is to be deducted from the arrears of rental due. Hence, the bald claim of the defendant in this regard qua the expenses incurred on renovation of the suit property and agreeing of the plaintiff to adjust the amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs in parts / installments every month, does not stand proved. Further the claims of the defendant that there was any leakage in the property, the lift in the property CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.21 of 35 did not work most of the time or that there was fire in the property having not been proved by any corroborative material. DW3, witness from fire department, has ngated the claim of defendant qua fire in the suit property. In such circumstances, the bald claim of the defendant and testimony of DW1 in this regard is not believable and hence the said facts do not stand proved.
35. It was for the plaintiff to first establish as to how the arrears of rent of Rs. 4,08,800/- was due against the defendant and the plaintiff has failed to provide details or bifurcation thereof and has not even proved the ledger account qua the same. Therefore, in my considered opinion the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the arrears of rental of Rs. 4,08,800/-, as claimed by it from the defendant.
36. Also, the plaintiff has not lead any evidence to corroborate its claim qua electricity and water charges due from the defendant for the period when the tenancy was subsisting. No bills or details thereof have been provided. In the absence of the same, the plaintiff is not entitled for the same also.
37. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2"2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits, unauthorized and occupation charges @ Rs.3,20,000/- w.e.f. 01-05-2018 till 21-08-2020? OPP"
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.22 of 35
38. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
39. Defendant in para 4 of parawise reply to the plaint in his written statement has himself admitted that tenancy came to an end by efflux of time on 30-04-2018, on which date last paid rent amount was Rs. 1,60,000/-. In view of the said admitted fact it is held that the tenancy came to an end on 30-04-2018 by efflux of time, on which date the rate of rent was Rs. 1,60,000/- per month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sevoke Properties Ltd. Vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.', AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2664, dated 11.04.2019, held as under;-
"we find that in the present case, there is an express admission on the part of the defendants that they were in occupation under the lease agreement for a period of fifteen years with effect from 1981 and that the period of lease expired on 24 May 1996. Such a specific admission on the part of the defendants is contained in paragraph 22 of the written statement. Under Section 111(a), a lease of immovable property determines by efflux of time limited thereby. Once this be the position, there can be no manner of doubt that the position of the respondent on the expiration of the lease was of a tenant at sufferance. In the circumstances, there was no necessity of a notice for the termination of the lease under the provisions of Section 106. The respondent having squarely admitted in its written statement that it was in occupation for a term of fifteen years, that term having expired, the lease stood determined by efflux of time. Once the lease stood determined by efflux of time, there was no necessity for a notice of termination under Section 106."
40. The defendant has claimed that after the expiry of the lease deed by efflux of time, it was a month to month tenancy and the CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.23 of 35 defendant was paying rentals at the agreed rate i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/- per month in cash to Ajay Kumar Kathuria, one of the Directors of the plaintiff company. No receipt qua any such cash payment of rental has been proved. Except for baldly claiming in this regard, no corroborative fact has been proved by the defendant and in the absence of the same and in view of the specific denial of the plaintiff qua the same, claim of the defendant does not stand proved.
41. It was admitted by the plaintiff during the court proceedings that possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on 21-08-2020, whereas the defendant in its written statement has claimed that the same was handed over on 31-03-2020. However, PW-1 has not deposed in his affidavit as to when the defendant had handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. DW-1 in his cross-examination dated 18-03-2020 stated as under:-
"It is true that I had paid the electricity bill of the premises in question till September, 2020. (Vol. I had paid all my bills till the last date of my occupying the property in question)."
42. From this part of the cross-examination of DW-1, it is the case of the defendant that the defendant was occupying the said property till September, 2020. However, since it is admitted case of the plaintiff that the possession was handed over by the defendant on CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.24 of 35 21-08-2020, therefore the said date shall be deemed to be the correct date of the receiving back of the possession of suit property and the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits/damages w.e.f. 1-05-2018 to 21-08-2020.
43. As regards the quantum of damages / mesne profits till 20-08- 2020, the plaintiff has claimed and PW-1 has also deposed that in terms of lease deed Ex. PW-1/2, the defendant was liable to pay double the amount of the last agreed rental i.e. @ Rs. 3,20,000/- per month for the said period. However, admittedly no evidence as to what is the market rental of similarly situated properties in the neighborhood of the tenanted premises, has been brought on record by the plaintiff. There is no proof of rate of mesne profit. In the absence of the same, merely on the basis of the aforesaid clause 16 of the lease deed Ex.PW-1/2, the plaintiff cannot be held to be entitled for double the amount of rental as damages / mesme profit.
44. I am fortified on this point in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s. Kusum Enterprises & Ors Vs Vimal Kochhar & Anr (2013 SCC Online Del 5127), para 13 of which is as under:
"The Division Bench of this Court in National Radio and Electronic Company Ltd. V. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005) DLT 629 has held that in the absence of proof of rate of mesne profits, mesne profits at a rate higher than the rate of rent by taking judicial notice of increase in rent cannot be given."
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.25 of 35
45. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and in my considered opinion, the plaintiff is held entitled to the last agreed rental of Rs. 1,60,000/- per month for the said period i.e. 1-05- 2018 to 21-08-2020 towards damages / mesne profits.
46. As regards interest on the mesne profits / damages, plaintiff has claimed that it is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum. However, in the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, it is held as follows;
"3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,(2005) 6 SCC 678,McDermott International Inc.v Burn Standard Co. Ltd.,(2006) 11 SCC 181,Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd.,(2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)."
47. In the given facts and circumstances and keeping in view the prevalent rate of interest, the plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on the outstanding amount.
48. It is to be noted that security amount of Rs. 5 Lac was paid by the defendant at the execution of lease deed Ex. PW-1/2, which amount would be first adjusted towards the damages/mesne profits to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.26 of 35
49. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 3"Whether the suit is not maintainable on the ground that Plaintiff Company has been struck off from the record of Registrar of Companies?
50.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
51. It is claimed by the defendant that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff's name was struck off from the records of Registrar of Companies and further that the suit is filed on the basis of extracts of Board resolution dated 27-06-2020 of the plaintiff company, which got dissolved w.e.f. 08-08-2018.
52.Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon Section 250 of Companies Act, 2013 and claimed that in the present suit, the tenant and landlord relationship between the parties is an admitted fact and defendant did not pay the rent even after termination of tenancy by efflux of time and remained in unauthorized and illegal occupation of the tenanted premises and thus the plaintiff was well within its rights to file the present suit for the claim. The section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 is relevant and is being reproduced as under:
"250. Effect of company notified as dissolved.--
Where a company stands dissolved under section 248, it shall on and from the date mentioned in the notice under sub-section (5) of that section cease to operate as a company and the Certificate of Incorporation issued to it shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such date CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.27 of 35 except for the purpose of realizing the amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the company".
53.In this context, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon one judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court at Maduria Bench, in the case of "M/s S.M.I.L.E. Micro Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s Fathi Software (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors." [C.R.P. (MD) No. 176 of 2023 dated 16.06.2023], wherein it is held as follows:
"11. The suit that has been instituted by the first respondent in O.S.No.7 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. cannot be short-circuited, merely because the first respondent's/plaintiff's name has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies.
12. The provisions of Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, make it very clear that even if the name of the Company is struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, its registration shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such date. However, there is no embargo for the suit to be filed or to be continued for the purpose of realizing the amounts due to the Company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the Company. In other words, the Company, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Register of Companies, cannot carry on any business. However, the proceedings which have already been initiated for the purpose of realizing the amount due to the Company can be proceeded. Similarly, the assets of the Company can be attached and brought to sale to discharge the liabilities or obligations of the Company. The Company can also enter into transactions for discharging the liabilities and obligations even after its name has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies.
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.28 of 35 Therefore, I am of the view that there is no case made out for striking off the plaint, merely because the name of the Company has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies."
54. Per contra, Ld Counsel for the defendant has stated that this judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case as in the cited case, the suit was filed prior to striking off the company and the challenge made by defendant was only to striking of the name of the plaintiff company. However, in the present suit the name of plaintiff was struck off from the record of ROC before institution of the present suit. Hence, I find force in the said submission of the Ld Counsel for the defendant and hold that the aforesaid case cited by the plaintiff does not help his case.
55.Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has further drawn my attention to a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in "Kaynet Finance Limited Vs. Verona Capital Limited" [AIR 2019 Bom. 298] under similar circumstances as that of the present case, wherein it was held in para 15 that a company is entitled to file and maintain a case for recovery of its dues (which was further upheld vide order dated 29.06.2021 by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ALP (Civil) No.16299 of 2020), the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"15. The second ground urged was of maintainability of the arbitration application filed in the Stock Exchange. Facts pertaining to this ground of challenge are these. A notification striking off the name of the Respondent from the Register of Companies under Section 248 (5) of the Companies Act of 2013 was issued on 18 August 2017. On CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.29 of 35 7 September 2017, a notification was issued declaring Directors of the Respondent as disqualified under Section 164 (2) (a) of the Act of 2013 for failure of the Respondent company to file the financial statements and annual returns for three years. The Respondent moved National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The arbitration claim was filed by the Respondent on 31 August 2018 through Director Ms. Mansi Vora. On 30 October 2018, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) restored the Respondent-company's name to the Register of the Companies. The application filed by the Appellant for intervention before the NCLT was dismissed. Position is that once the name of the company is restored to the Register of the Companies, it is deemed to have never been struck off......"
56. Per contra, Ld Counsel for the defendant has claimed that the said judgment was with regard to disqualification of Directors and therefore is not relevant for the purposes of the present suit. However, perusal of the judgment cited by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff, it is revealed that the Director of the company was disqualified only after the name of the company was struck off from the ROC and hence this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and I find force in the contention of Ld Counsel for the plaintiff that in the present suit also, vide its order dated 24-12-2020 Ex.PW1/15, NCLT had allowed the appeal of the plaintiff company and had issued directions for restoration of its name in the Registrar of ROC, as if its name had not been struck off and it can be inferred that NCLT had ratified all the actions of the plaintiff company for the period between 08.08.2018 and 24.12.2020.
57.As regards the plea of defendant that the plaintiff had concealed CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.30 of 35 the factum of its name being struck off from the record of ROC, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a judgment reported as 'Bombay Gas Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Western Region & Ors.' [MANU/MH/0984/1996], [Paras 4, 6 & 25], wherein the factum of the company having struck off from the Register of the ROC was inadvertently missed while filing the petition and immediately upon gaining knowledge thereof remedial measures were taken by filing appropriate application whereupon the name of the company was restored as if the name of the company was never struck off and accordingly the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said objection of fraud and concealment. I find force in the said judgment cited by the plaintiff. Accordingly, I hold that the claim of the defendant that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that plaintiff company had been struck off from the record of Registrar of Companies, does not hold water.
58.With respect to his objection that the suit is filed on the basis of extracts of Board resolution dated 27-06-2020 of the company which got dissolved w.e.f. 08-08-2018 and PW-1 was not competent to appear and depose on behalf of the plaintiff, defendant has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Escorts Ltd Vs Sai Auto & others 42 (1990) Delhi Law Times, 446, wherein it is held that the only way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of a company is that the minutes book in which the said resolution was recorded as having been passed should be produced in court as the alone can form evidence of the fact that such a resolution was passed.
59. Per contra, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.31 of 35 the Order XXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC read with judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in "United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors." [AIR 1997 SC 3] [Paras 10 to 13] & by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Suman Sharma" [MANU/DE/3735/2010] [Paras 3 & 4] & also in "IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. Vs. Santosh Khosla & Ors." [MANU/DE/1078/2012] [Para 8], which states that in a suit by or against a corporation, the pleadings can be signed & verified by a Director/Principal Officer of a company and a suit cannot be dismissed on a technical ground. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that even in the event, the name of the company is struck off from the register of ROC, then also for the purposes of realizing the lawful dues of the company, the Company can be represented by the Director/Shareholder. Reliance in this regards is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in "Kaynet Finance Limited Vs. Verona Capital Limited" [AIR 2019 Bom. 298] [Para 16 & 23]. It is an admitted fact that PW-1 Ajay Kathuria is one of the Directors of the plaintiff company, who has not only signed the registered Lease Deed dated 24.07.2017 between the parties but has also signed the plaint and has knowledge of all the facts. Also, defendant has not been able to prove on record that PW-1 was not duly authorized to appear and depose on behalf of the plaintiff in the present suit. I find force in the said submissions made by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff. Thus, it is held that PW-1 was duly authorized to appear and depose before this court on behalf of the plaintiff.
60.As such, in the light of order dated 24.12.2020 (Ex. PW-1/15) by CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.32 of 35 Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi and judgments cited by the plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff had every right to file the present case against the defendant through one of its Director PW-1 Sh Ajay Kumar Kathuria. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
"ISSUE NO. 4Whether the lease deed dated 24.07.2017 is vitiated on the basis of fraud as alleged?"
61.The onus to prove this issue was also on the defendant.
62. The defendant has claimed that the plaintiff had not apprised the defendant that the tenanted premises was not a commercial property and hence the lease deed dated 24-07-2017 Ex. PW-1/2 was vitiated on the basis of fraud. However, the admitted lease deed Ex. P-2 itself mentions property type as "commercial" and also Clause 1 of the Lease Deed reads as "The Lessee is taking premises for opening of Gym proposes by the name of Dr Force Gym only......" ". Admittedly running of a gym is a commercial activity.
63. Furthermore, defendant's own summoned witness i.e. DW-3 Prem Dutt Sharma, who was Office-in-Charge Building Department, MCD, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, had proved that the tenanted premises was situated on a commercial road and since conversion and parking charges were deposited, therefore commercial CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.33 of 35 activities could be run from there. The defendant had chosen not to get the said witness declared hostile or to seek permission from the court to cross-examine the said witness thereby admitting the said statement of the witness. Furthermore, the said witness in cross-examination by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had admitted that the said property could be used for commercial purposes since 2013, after the conversion and parking charges were deposited.
64.Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the tenanted premises were rented out to the defendant to carry out commercial activities of running a gym, which is specifically mentioned in the lease deed Ex. PW-1/2 and also stands proved from the categorical testimony of DW-3. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5 "RELIEF"
65. In view of my findings to above issues, a decree of damages/mesne profits is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant @ Rs. 1,60,000/- per month w.e.f. 1-05-2018 till 20- 08-2020. Plaintiff is also awarded interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1-05-2018 on the said amount till realization.
66. It is to be noted that since the plaintiff has not been awarded the arrears of rental of Rs. 6,18,800/- claimed, which was later corrected as 4,08,800/- after subtracting the arrears of rental paid of Rs. 2,10,000/- admitted by the plaintiff but since no amount CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.34 of 35 under the head of arrears of rental has been awarded to the plaintiff therefore the said amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- cannot be deducted from the damages / mesne profits amount awarded.
67. The security amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the inception of lease deed, shall be first adjusted from the aforesaid total amount awarded qua damages. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared, after deposit of deficient Court fees. File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed
ASHUTOSH by ASHUTOSH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.21
16:10:57 +0530
(Announced in the open (Ashutosh Kumar)
Court) District Judge (Commercial Court)-1
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
21-12-2024
CS (COMM.) No. 184/2020 M/s. AM Informatics Pvt Ltd Vs Love Chauhan Page No.35 of 35