Delhi District Court
M/S Gopal Das Estates And Housing ... vs Condor Air Services Pvt Ltd on 29 May, 2025
DLND010089342021
IN THE COURT OF MRS VINEETA GOYAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL-03),
PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.590/2021
CNR No.DLND010089342021
In the matter of :-
1 Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd.
2 Hoover Services Pvt. Ltd.
3 Ardee Housing Pvt. Ltd.
All having registered office at :-
Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 16th Floor,
28, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
Condor Air Services Pvt. Ltd.
Office Address at :-
5th Floor, Augusta Point,
Golf Course Road, Sector-53,
Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana,
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Ph.No.: 9810143936, 01244797518
(Aadhaar No. of Director Jasleen - 23458944 3365)
(DIN No. of Director Jasleen - 01293189)
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:12:34
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 1 / 32
Registered office at :-
118, New Delhi House,
27, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi - 110001. ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 13.12.2021
Date on which judgment pronounced : 29.05.2025
Appearance : Sh. Bimlendu Shekhar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff along
with Sh. Prem Gautam, Company Secretary on behalf
of plaintiffs.
Sh. Kamal Kishore and Sh. Shubham Singh,
Ld.Counsels for defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.14,33,560/- WITH
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 12% P.A.
AND
Counter Claim No.: 13/2022
In the matter of :
Condor Air Services Pvt. Ltd.
5th Floor, Augusta Point,
Golf Course Road, Sector-53,
Gurugram, Haryana- 122002,
Also registered office at :
118, New Delhi House,
27, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ....Counter Claimant / Defendant
Versus
1 Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd.
2 Hoover Services Pvt. Ltd.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:12:41
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 2 / 32
3 Ardee Housing Pvt. Ltd.
All having registered office at :-
Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 16th Floor,
28, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
Email : [email protected]
Ph : 9811713070 ....Non-Claimants / Plaintiffs.
COUNTER CLAIM FOR RECOVERY AND
DAMAGES FOR RS.15,38,184/-
Date of Institution : 28.04.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 29.05.2025
Appearance : Sh. Kamal Kishore and Sh. Shubham Singh,
Ld. Counsels for counter claimant.
Sh. Bimlendu Shekhar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff along
with Sh. Prem Gautam, Company Secretary on behalf
of non-claimants.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.14,33,560/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. against the defendant. The defendant has filed a counter claim for recovery of Rs. 15,38,184/- along with pendente-lite and future interest against the plaintiff.
2 Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off suit as well as counter claim filed by the parties. For the sake of Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:12:48 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 3 / 32 convenience, the defendant / counter-claimant has been referred as defendant and plaintiff / non-counter claimant has been referred as the plaintiff.
3 Brief facts as epitomized in the plaint are that the plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 3 are private limited companies. The plaintiff no.1 is engaged in its limited activity of leasing the commercial space for the commercial purposes. The last rent receivable by the plaintiff no.1 is Rs. 2,94,383/- including applied tax from defendant. The plaintiff no.2, sister concern of plaintiff no.1, is engaged in providing commercial services of power backup and central air conditioning for the defendant and the best charge of commercial service received by plaintiff no.2 is Rs. 78,294/- including tax application which was exclusively used by defendant. The plaintiff no.3 is sister concern of plaintiff no.1, engaged in providing the commercial services of common area maintenance services to the defendant. The last charges for commercial services received by the plaintiff no.3 is Rs. 22,585/- including tax application which was exclusively used by the defendant.
3.1 It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiffs have authorized Sh. Virender Singh vide their Board Resolution dated 16.11.2021 to sign, verify and depose on behalf of plaintiffs and to file the present suit against the defendant.
3.2 It is further averred that the plaintiff no.1 is the Lessor Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:12:55 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 4 / 32 of the commercial property at the 12 th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, admeasuring 2200 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises). The defendant was inducted as a commercial tenant in the suit premises by virtue of a registered lease deed dated 28.01.2019 (the Lease Deed) on a monthly rent of Rs.2,72,580/- and the rent was payable from 01.01.2019 for a period of three years. The defendant also signed Commercial Service Agreements with plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 in respect of the services provided by each one of them and which were exclusively used by the defendant for the suit premises.
3.3 It is then averred that defendant in violation of term of registered lease and other commercial services agreements failed to pay the rent amount and charges for services from April, 2020 till 04.12.2020 being an amount of Rs.14,33,560/- towards arrears of rent and other services charges. The defendant paid the rent and other service charges till March, 2020 but thereafter did not pay the rent.
3.4 The plaintiffs allegedly sent bills for the month of April, 2020 through email dated 08.04.2020 thereby demanding rent with request of sharing of UTR number and payment details. Thereafter allegedly plaintiffs again sent an email dated 21.04.2020 for payment of monthly rent and service charges.
However, defendant sent an email dated 12.06.2020 with request that Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Director of defendant company, wishes to contact the plaintiff and another email was sent on 26.06.2020 Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:13:02 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 5 / 32 requesting for waiver of rent for April and May, 2020 and the said request was not accepted by the plaintiff.
3.5 As per the plaint, subsequently, Mr. Vikramjit Singh sent an email dated 27.08.2020 with an attachment purported to be a termination notice dated 01.04.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the Termination notice). This email was replied by the plaintiff through email dated 01.09.2020 informing defendant that no such purported notice has ever been received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further requested to adopt the reasonable approach and clear the outstanding dues. The defendant on the same day i.e. 01.09.2020 sent an email demanding the security deposits from the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent another email dated 09.09.2020 requesting defendant to make payment of outstanding amount and handover the vacant possession of the suit premises.
3.6 Thereafter the parties further communicated with emails dated 14.09.2020, 21.09.2020, 11.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 04.12.2020 and on 04.12.2020 defendant removed movable goods from the suit premises leaving behind 11 chairs unattended at the main gate of the commercial building namely Gopal Das Bhawan and left the key of the suit premises in front of the official of plaintiff and therefore delivered the possession to the plaintiff on
04.12.2020 and thus defendant is liable for payment / services charges till December, 2020.
3.7 The plaintiff vide email dated 08.12.2020 and speed Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:13:08 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 6 / 32 post demanded the arrear of rent, CAM charges, electricity till
04.12.2020 but despite receipt of the letter, defendant has not paid any amount due to plaintiffs.
3.8 It is lastly averred that defendant is liable to pay amount towards rent and charges for other services from April, 2020 to December, 2020, which are as under: -
i) Rs.22,15,812/- towards rent for the specified period and payable to plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no. 1 was having security amount of Rs.16,35,480/- and after adjusting the security amount, the net amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff no. 1 comes to Rs. 9,79,178/-. Similarly, defendant is also liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,811/-
towards consumption of electricity for the period of March, 2020 to July, 2020 to the plaintiff no.1.
ii) Similarly, an amount of Rs.5,48,738/- towards air- conditioning and power back up for the specified period payable to plaintiff no.2. The plaintiff no.2 was having a security amount of Rs.4,04,976/- and after adjusting the security amount, the net amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff no.2 comes to Rs.2,42,464/-.
iii) Similarly, an amount of Rs.1,58,272/- towards maintenance for the specified period and payable to plaintiff no.3. The plaintiff no.3 was having a security amount of Rs.1,16,820/- and after adjusting the security amount, the net amount payable by the defendant to plaintiff no.3 comes to Rs.69,941/-.
Digitally signed by VINEETAVINEETA GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.29 17:13:14 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 7 / 32 3.9 It is further alleged that the defendant is also liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. and an amount of Rs.1,36,166/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The total amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs comes to Rs.14,33,560/- which the defendant has failed to pay.
3.10 The cause of action for filing the present suit arose in April, 2020, when the first default in payment of rent by defendant took place. The suit premises situated at 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and the defendant was working for gain at New Delhi, hence, this court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The subject matter of the suit arises, relates to recovery of rent and services charges from immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. The plaintiffs further averred that an application was also referred before the concerned DSLSA, Patiala House Court, however, despite issuance of notice, the defendant did not appear, due to which matter was declared 'Non-Starter' as per Non-Starter Report dated 15.11.2021.
3.11 In the prayer clause of the plaint, it is accordingly prayed that a decree for sum of Rs.10,86,878/- be passed in favour of plaintiff no.1 along with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a. ; a decree for Rs.2,69,047/- be passed in favour of plaintiff no.2 along with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a. and a decree for a sum of Rs.77,635/-
Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:13:20 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 8 / 32 be passed in favour of plaintiff no.3 along with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a. Hence this suit for recovery.
4 Pursuant to summons issued, the defendant appeared and filed written statement making preliminary submissions that the plaintiff no.1 and defendant were having a landlord - tenant relationship since December, 2015 and the first lease deed was executed on 30.12.2015 which was further renewed by Lease Deed dated 28.01.2019 for further period of three years. In addition to the Lease Deed, there are three separate agreements of the defendant with plaintiff nos.2 and 3 for services. Along with said Lease Deed, a separate Agreement dated 28.01.2019 was entered between plaintiff no.2 company, a sister concern of plaintiff no.1, and defendant for Central Air Conditioning and another similar agreement dated 28.01.2019 was entered between plaintiff no.2 and defendant for 100% power back-up and in addition to these, a separate Agreement dated 28.01.2019 was entered between plaintiff no.3 and defendant for maintenance services.
4.1 It is then submitted that various securities laying with each parties were that the plaintiff no.1 had six months' rent of Rs.16,35,480/- lying as security and the plaintiff no.2 had six months of charges of Rs.4,04,976/- lying as security and similarly plaintiff no.3 had six months of charges of Rs.1,16,820/- lying as security. As per the Agreements, the defendant had deposited six Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.29 17:13:35 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 9 / 32 months advance rents and charges as security to the plaintiffs, total of which comes out to be Rs.21,57,276/-.
4.2 The Lease Agreement had clause 6 for termination of the Agreement and as such, the Lease Deed can be terminated in two cases:
i) Defendant gives notice of two months or rent in lieu of the same thereof ;
ii) The rent is not paid by the tenant for two consecutive months.
4.3 It is further submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the business of the defendant company suffered badly as almost all the international passenger flights were suspended as per the order of Govt. of India. It was a major setback for defendant company as passenger flight business was its major source of revenue as they were the GSA of passenger business of China Southern Airlines. The defendant made requests to the plaintiffs for reducing the rent in such circumstances but the request of the defendant was kept pending and, in such circumstances, the defendant was compelled for vacating the suit premises as its major source of income was closed and it tried to communicate its decision to the plaintiffs but did not get any response from their side. Finally, defendant gave plaintiffs two months advance notice for the termination of the Lease Agreement and vacated the office space through registered AD dated 01.04.2020 and asked them for refund equivalent to four months rent after adjusting two Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:13:42 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 10 / 32 months rent from the amount of security deposit paid by it to the plaintiffs which was equivalent to six months rent.
4.4 The office of the defendant was closed and no services were being used by the defendant during the said period. After the period of two months, defendant shifted / vacated its office from suit premises to the address at 5 th Floor, Augusta Point, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, and through telephonic conversations, defendant made requests to the plaintiffs to take the keys / possession of the suit premises and refund the security amount after adjusting two months rent but no satisfactory response received from their side and the plaintiffs were not taking the possession of the suit premises. However, to shock and surprise of the defendant, the plaintiffs refused to refund four months security by falsely claiming that they did not receive any termination notice from defendant.
4.5 On 27.08.2020, Mr. Vikramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Managing Director of defendant, sent an email to the plaintiffs stating that it made all attempts to give possession of the suit premises and was unable to do so because of the inaction at the part of the plaintiffs. The termination notice was again brought to the notice of the plaintiffs. On 01.09.2020, plaintiffs sent an email to the defendant stating that they have not received the termination notice dated 01.04.2020 and the lease will expire only on 27.10.2020. In reply to the email dated 01.09.2020 of the plaintiffs, an email dated 01.09.2020 was sent by the defendant, Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:13:49 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 11 / 32 through its managing Director, he conveyed his shock from the response of the plaintiffs and again requested to take the possession and refund the adjusted security amount.
4.6 Thereafter, through telephonic conversation defendant was requested by the plaintiffs to show receipt / AD and accordingly, Mr. Santosh Joshi, office boy of defendant, went to the office of plaintiffs on 03.09.2020 on the 16th Floor of the same building to show them the receipt of registered AD and it is submitted that their office personnel kept the said receipt with them to show the same to their management and to check with their guards as to who had received the letter when it came and told Mr. Joshi to collect back the same after few days but the same was never returned to defendant.
4.7 Thereafter again the plaintiffs sent an email dated 09.01.2020 making false claims and averments. It is further submitted that the office of the defendant was even otherwise closed from 22.03.2020 and had shifted to Gurugram and there was no reason for it to retain the possession of the suit premises and as such the possession was being offered by the defendant.
An email dated 14.09.2020 was sent by the defendant wherein it was conveyed to the plaintiffs that they never came forward to take possession of the suit premises. When the plaintiffs were not taking the possession of the suit premises even after repeated requests of the defendant, the defendant finally dropped the keys of the suit premises on 04.12.2020 at the office of the plaintiffs.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:13:56
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 12 / 32
Thereafter the plaintiffs issued a false and frivolous legal notice dated 08.12.2020 through their advocate against the defendant which was replied by the defendant vide email dated 22.01.2021 sent by its Managing Director. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have dishonestly misappropriated the security amount deposited by the defendant and that they were entrusted with the security money and dishonestly misappropriated it for their own use. The plaintiffs have deceived the defendant fraudulently and dishonestly inducing it to deliver the security amount causing harm to the defendant. It is further submitted that a criminal complaint dated 14.02.2022 bearing no.81650022200098 has already been lodged against the plaintiffs at the behest of the defendant with Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
4.8 In the aforesaid, written statement, while giving para- wise reply denied to the contentions of the plaintiff and prayed that the suit be dismissed.
5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiffs reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denied the contents of the written statement. The plaintiffs also submitted that the interest free security has already been exhausted by defendant and is liable to pay for further rent and agreed service charges till 04.12.2020 and for this purpose, the defendant had been given a proposal with detail calculation. The entire interest free security deposits with all plaintiffs has already been exhausted by the defendant. It is further submitted that the Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:01 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 13 / 32 request for waiver of rent for the months of April and May, 2020 was not accepted by the plaintiffs as the defendant was bound by the agreement and the defendant was not showing any bona fide intention to pay the due amount and the same happened in the mediation also. The defendant was adamant for not settling the dispute which the defendant was liable to pay. It is next submitted that the plaintiff had never came to the knowledge of any such purported or manufactured notice dated 01.04.2020 till 26.08.2020 and this manufactured notice dated 01.04.2020 was attached by the defendant for the first time in its email dated 27.08.2020. The defendant has even neither produced any valid receipt of sending the letter dated 01.04.2020 nor has shown its authenticity. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs were always operational throughout the period as there were so many multinational companies, banks, CIPLA medicine company, etc. were operational in the building and the defendant was receiving the regular services to its suit premises and the office of the defendant was functional. The defendant had occupied the premises till 04.12.2020. It is further submitted that the plaintiff did not receive notice dated 01.04.2020 and it was firstly received on 27.08.2020 by way of email under the attachment and the defendant wanted to escape from its liability and that is why created such forged and fabricated document dated 01.04.2020.
The defendant never had intention to hand over the possession rather intended to continue to retain the possession. It is further submitted that the defendant was keeping its office furniture and assets and the defendant did not handover the key of the suit Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:08 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 14 / 32 premises to the plaintiffs and the key of the premises was handed over on 04.12.2020 after removing the chairs by the defendant.
6. A counterclaim was filed by the defendant predominantly taking the contentions raised in the Written Statement above which inter alia includes that the plaintiff/ landlord was given notice of termination on 01.04.2020, therefore from the security deposit lying with the plaintiff, two months rent/ charges were to be deducted and balance be refunded. It is submitted that the defendant did not pay the rent after March, 2020 as on 01.04.2020, it gave notice for termination of lease and asked to adjust two months' rent from the security. It is further submitted that no amount is due to the plaintiffs from the defendant and in fact the plaintiffs are liable to refund the security amount of four months along with 18% interest. On these grounds, a prayer was made that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost and in the counter claim the following was prayed:-
a) A decree for a sum of Rs.10,90,320/- be passed in favour of counter claimant and against plaintiff no.1 with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a.
b) A decree for a sum of Rs.2,69,984/- be passed in favour of defendant / counter claimant and against plaintiff no.2 with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a.
c) A decree for a sum of Rs.77,880/- be passed in favour of defendant / counter claimant and against plaintiff no.3 with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a. Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:14 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 15 / 32
d) A decree of Rs.1,00,000/- be passed as damages in favour of defendant / counter claimant and against all the plaintiffs with pendente lite and future interest till realization @ 12% p.a.
7. It is matter of record that the plaintiff filed reply/ written statement to the counter claim along with the statement of truth etc. The defendant also filed the rejoinder and then issues were framed.
8. For the sake of convenience, the issues of the main suit and the counter-claim are reproduced hereunder:-
Main Suit bearing CS (COMM) 590/21
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs.14,33,560/-, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and from which period ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff had received a mail from defendant in August, 2020 confirming their notice of termination and offer to take possession ? OPD
4. Relief.In counter claim 13/22
1. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,90,320/- from respondent no.1, as prayed for ? OPCC
2. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,69,984/- from respondent Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:23 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 16 / 32 no.2, as prayed for ? OPCC
3. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.77,880/- from respondent no.3, as prayed for ? OPCC
4. Whether Condor Air Services Private Limited / counter claimant is entitled for damages of a sum of Rs.1.0 Lakh against the respondents, as prayed for ? OPCC
5. Whether the counter claims are barred by law in view of Order 8 rule 6A and Order VII Rule 6B CPC? OPR
6. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPCC
7. Relief.
9. Thereafter matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. The parties to the suit and the counter-claim lead evidence by tendering documents. The plaintiff examined Sh.Varinder Singh Yadav as PW-1 who was cross examined and the evidence was closed. The defendant examined Ms. Jasleen Ahluwalia DW-1 and Sh. Santosh Joshi as DW-2.
10 Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant has addressed arguments.
11 I have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record. My issue-wise findings are as under :-
Issue no.1 and 3 in Main Suit bearing no. CS (Comm)-590/21 and Issue no.1, 2 and 3 in Counter Claim bearing no. 13/2022:
Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:31 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 17 / 32
12 Both these issues are taken up together for discussion being interlinked. The plaintiff to establish its case, plaintiff has examined its Accounts Officer Sh. Virender Singh Yadav as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PW-1/A and proved following documents :-
Resolution of Board of Directors _ Ex.PW-1/1 Notice sent through mail u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC - Ex.PW-1/2 Bank statement - Mark PW-1/3 Certified copy of lease deed - Ex.PW-1/4 Copy of agreements of power back up and central air conditioning - Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6 respectively. Bank statement showing the payment of Rs.78294 - Mark PW-1/8 Maintenance agreement - Ex.PW-1/9 Statement showing the payment of Rs.78924 - Mark PW-1/10 Email dated 08.04.2020 - Ex.PW-1/11 Email dated 21.04.2020 - Ex.PW-1/12 Email dated 12.06.2020 - Ex.PW-1/13 Email dated 26.06.2020 - Ex.PW-1/14 Email dated 27.08.2020 with attachment with purported termination notice dated 01.04.2020 - Ex.PW-1/15 (colly) Emails dated 01.02.2020 at 2:10 PM, 01.09.2020 at 12:57 PM
- Ex.Pw-1/16 and Ex.PW-1/17 respectively. Mail dated 09.09.2020 - Ex.PW-1/18 Mail dated 14.09.2020, 21.09.2020, 11.11.2020, 17.11.2020 -
Ex.PW-1/19, Ex.PW-1/20, Ex.PW-1/21 and Ex.PW-1/22 respectively.
Mail dated 04.11.2020 - Ex.PW-1/23 Mail dated 08.12.2020 - Ex.PW-1/24 Letter dated 18.02.2020 qua proposal to settle the dispute -
Ex.PW-1/25
Certificate u/s. 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.PW-1/26
Non-Starter Report - Ex.PW-1/27.
13 On the contrary, defendant has examined Ms. Jasleen
Alhuwalia as DW-1, who has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon following documents :
Board Resolution dated 27.01.2022 - Ex.DW-1/1 Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.29 17:14:38 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 18 / 32 Lease deed dated 28.01.2019 - Ex.DW-1/2 (Ex.PW-1/4) Agreement dated 28.01.2019 - Ex.DW-1/3 (Ex.PW-1/5) Agreement dated 28.01.2019 - Ex.DW-1/4 (Ex. PW-1/6) Agreement dated 28.01.2019 - Ex.DW-1/5 (Ex.PW-1/9) Termination Letter / Notice dated 01.04.2020 - Ex.DW-1/6 Email dated 21.04.2020 - Ex.DW-1/7 (Ex.PW-1/12) Email dated 12.06.2020 & 26.06.2020-Ex.DW-1/8 (Ex.PW-1/13 and Ex.PW-1/14).
Email dated 27.08.2020 - Ex.DW-1/9 (Ex.PW-1/15) Email dated 01.09.2020 - Ex.DW-1/10 (Ex.PW-1/16) Email dated 01.09.2020 - Ex.DW-1/11 (Ex.PW-1/17) Email dated 09.09.2020 - Ex.DW-1/12 Ex.PW-1/18) Email dated 14.09.2020 - Ex.DW-1/13 (Ex.PW-1/19) Reply dated 22.01.2021 - Ex.DW-1/14 Criminal Complaint dated 14.02.2022 - Ex.DW-1/15 14 The defendant has also examined Sh. Santosh Kumar Joshi as DW-2, who deposed that he had been working as office boy in World Connect Pvt. Ltd. for the last 17 years, which is a sister concern of Condor Air Services Pvt. Ltd. He then deposed that he had been working in both the company as a office boy. He further deposed that their office regularly received the internal post / Dak from the sister concern office at Gurgaon and that he used to deliver the post / Dak to the Gopaldas / plaintiff office regularly at 16th Floor. He further clarified that he had given the post / dak to the madam sitting at the reception of the 16 th Floor of the plaintiff office without taking any receipt any signature.
15 At the outset, it may be seen that the documents tendered by both the parties are broadly not disputed except the Notice of Termination dated 01.04.2020 Ex.DW-1/6 allegedly sent by the defendant to the plaintiff giving two months' notice of vacation.
16 The first part of the dispute between the parties Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:44 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 19 / 32 erupted on the date when the notice of termination of lease allegedly was served by the defendant upon the plaintiff. The Lease deed (Ex.PW-1/4 and Ex.DW-1/2) as per clause 6 provides that the tenant can do the same by giving a notice of two months in advance or two months rent in lieu thereof. The aforesaid Lease agreement does not provide for procedure/ method of service of the notice.
17 Though Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 comes into play only if the duration is not provided in the lease agreement but its provision in sub-clause 4 is useful: -
"(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property."
18 In the instant case, the defendant - tenant intends to take benefit of the notice of termination dated 01.04.2020 (Ex.DW-1/6) therefore, the burden is upon him to prove that the said notice was served on 01.04.2020. It is claimed on behalf of the defendant that the aforesaid notice was sent through Registered post/AD but while the defendant was conversing with the plaintiff on the issue through telephonic conversation then the defendant was requested by the plaintiffs to show receipt / AD. Accordingly, on 03.09.2020, Mr. Santosh Joshi, office boy of defendant, went to the office of plaintiffs on the 16th Floor of the same building to show them the receipt of registered AD. It is claim of the defendant that their office personnel kept the said Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:50 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 20 / 32 receipt with them to show the same to their management and to check with their guards as to who had received the letter when it came and told Mr. Joshi to collect back the same after few days but the same was never returned to defendant.
19 Under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the service of a letter is presumed to be effective if sent to the correct address. Once a letter is properly dispatched by registered post, the burden shifts to the party disputing the delivery to provide contrary proof. (Jain Developers & Others Versus Raja R. Chhabria and others, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 121, Para 29). In the present case, the defendant has failed to provide the proof of sending of the letter. It is unbelievable that even if it is accepted that once in September 2020, the plaintiff has not returned the original documents of letter sent through AD the defendant would not have any copy or could not pull it from the postal authority. The unsubstantiated contention that a police complaint was lodged in February 2021 Ex.DW-1/5 would not help. Similarly, the deposition of Sh. Santosh Kumar Joshi DW-2 cannot prove that the Notice of Termination of the Lease was served upon the plaintiff on 01.04.2020. It is also pertinent to mention that there were communications by the defendant to the plaintiff on e-mail dated 21.04.2020 (Ex.PW-1/12 and Ex. DW1/7), dated 12.06.2020 and 26.06.2020 (Ex.PW-1/13 & Ex. PW-1/14 and Ex. DW1/8) but in none of these e-mails the defendant even mentioned about the Notice of Termination of the Lease. These e-mails were only about reduction of the rent due to Covid-19 pandemic. It is Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:14:56 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 21 / 32 surprising by the end of month of June 2020, as per the case of the defendant the lease notice period was over then why these communications did not contain even a whisper of vacation of the demised premises. The defendant has failed to prove the service of notice of termination as on 01.04.2020.
20 It is pertinent to mention that the alleged notice of termination dated 01.04.2020 (Ex.DW-1/6) was again sent by the defendant to the plaintiff as an attachment in the e-mail dated 27.08.2020 (Ex. PW-1/5 and DW-1/9). This service is not disputed through e-mail and would be treated as valid notice of termination served on 27.08.2020. The above e-mail was responded by the plaintiff on 01.09.2020 (Ex. PW-1/ and DW-1/9).
21 In consideration of the facts above, by virtue of serving Notice of termination through e-mail dated 28.08.2020 and duly acknowledged by the plaintiff on 01.09.2020, the months of September and October 2020 were the two months' notice period as provided in the lease deed and thus the defendant has duly notified its intention to vacate the demised premises on 30.10.2020.
22 Now, the part two of the controversy between the parties revolves around the fact that the plaintiffs claim that the demised premises was vacated on 04.12.2020 when the keys were handed over to the staff at the premises. The defendant claims that Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:15:02 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 22 / 32 much prior (after two months from the April 2020), it has shifted its premises to 5th Floor, Augusta point, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon. Now the question arises after serving notice of termination vide e-mail dated 27.08.2020 what transpired between the parties for taking over the possession of the demised premises. For this purpose, reference can be made to email dated 14.09.2020 (Ex. PW-1/19) where Ms. Jasleen Ahluwalia has sent e-mail to the plaintiff where in the concluding paragraph it is offered that handover and settlement may be done simultaneously. This e-mail was responded by the plaintiff vide e-mail dated 21.09.2020 (Ex. PW-1/20) as under:-
"Received your email of 14 September 2020 and fail to understand that despite repeatedly informing you that notice dated 01.04.2020 has not been received by us, you are unnecessarily raising the same in every communication, This is the last communication we are addressing to you and are making clear that you are liable for the payment of rent and other charges till the expiry of notice period or handing over possession as per terms of lease deed whichever is later. Further reference being made by you to the terms of the clause as referred to in the email we may inform you that the option of terminating the lease is with us but that does not give any right to you to waive off the notice period.
It is therefore is in your interest to clear all the dues otherwise we have no options except to approach the court of law for recovery and for other losses which we are incurring on account of non-payment of rents and other charges.
Regards"
23 From the above, it is clear that the plaintiff has insisted upon clearance of all the dues before any possession could be taken. The defendant /tenant again offered amicable settlement and possession vide e-mail dated 11.11.2020 (Ex.
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:08
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 23 / 32
PW-1/21).
"With the festive season around we would want to amicably resolve the pending issue of our already vacated office an 12th floor in Gopal Dass Bhawan taken on lease from Ardee.
We had send the 2 month notice period of vacating to Ardee effective Ist April, 2020 but sadly Ardee group has not been accepting it for whatever reasons best known to themselves.
We have had a long healthy relationship with your organization for more than 8 years and would like it to end on the same note amicably. We have left our office totally furnished including chairs, tables etc thus any new tenent of yours does not need to spend to renovate. As requested earlier since June, 2020 beginning that kindly settle our dues and take the vacant procession of the office from us, Ardee has not been willing to accept the same. We again offer to handover the keys of the office before Diwali and have this issue amicably resolved and a fair settlement be reached between both our organisations. We have tried several times to contact Ms. Shibani Verma, Director of Ardee and she has not been available for a call to discuss this matter.
Looking forward to a positive response from your end Kind Regards"
The plaintiff vide e-mail dated 17.11.2020 (Ex. PW-1/22) reiterated position of clearance of dues and deemed possession.
"Your email dated 11.11.2020 is contrary to all earlier mail and oral telephonic discussions. We have repeatedly Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:15:14 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 24 / 32 informed you that so called purported notice dated 01.04.2020 has not been received by us. We have only received your notice dated 27.08.2020. Therefore it cannot be called notice required to be given in terms of lease. As regards your contention, that you have vacated the office, we draw your attention to various emails sent by us wherein we have clearly informed you that, till actual vacant possession is handed over, the possession is, deemed to be with you, holding you liable for payment of rent/damages.
To us it appears that you are not serious in resolving the issues and are increasing your liabilities for payments and other charges.
We therefore once again request you to handover keys and vacant possessión to us.
The company is not interested in any of the fittings and fixture and wants vacant possession.
On receipt of the keys and vacant physical possession final accounting will be prepared and you can discuss with Mr. Chand Bhatt thereafter."
24 In the background above, it is to be noted that after determination of the tenancy after serving of notice of termination as on 27.08.2020, in accordance with the Lease deed, and read with Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), the lessee-defendant was duty bound to keep the suit property in good condition and on determination of the lease bound to put the lessor-plaintiffs into possession of the property.
Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:15:20 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 25 / 32
25 It is also well settled that the landlord cannot refuse to take over the possession of the suit property upon determination of lease. In the event of refusal of landlord to take possession offered by the tenant, the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord and the tenant shall not be liable to pay the rent thereafter. This issue has been elaborately considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, vide judgment dated 14.05.20145 reported as 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9524, (2015) 220 DLT 179. Hon'ble Court in this case gave consideration to the cases A.C. Raman v. Muthavally Seydali's Son Valiyakath Kaithakkal Kunhi Bara Haji, AIR 1953 Madras 996, Raja Laxman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Rajasthan 44, Onida Finance Limited v. Malini Khanna, 2002 (3) AD (Delhi) 231, Uberoisons (Machines) Ltd. v. Samtel Color Ltd. , 2003 (69) DRJ 523, Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Society v. Harbans Lal Gupta, 2009 (107) DRJ 418 (DB), Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi v. Metso Minerals (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 114 DRJ 653, Kamal Mangla v. Tata Finance Ltd., 2011 ILR 3 Delhi 682, Associated Journal Limited v. ICRA Ltd., MANU/DE/0851/2012 and eventually summarized the jurisprudence in paragraph 10 of the judgment as under:-
"10. Summary of Principles of law:
From the analysis of the above decisions and the provisions with which we are concerned, the following principles emerge:-
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
17:15:27
+0530
CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 26 / 32
10.1. Determination of lease - Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act provides various modes of determination of lease such as determination by efflux of time [Section 111(a)]; expiry of the period of notice of termination [Section 111(h)]; express surrender [Section 111(e)] and implied surrender [section 111(f)]. 10.2. Obligations of the landlord and the tenant upon determination of lease - The tenant is bound to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord upon determination of lease [under Section 108(q)].
10.3. Duty of tenant to restore the tenanted premises -The tenant is bound to restore the tenanted premises in the same condition in which it was taken.[Section 108(B)(m]. 10.4. Remedy of landlord in the event of non-restoration by the tenant - In the event of non-restoration of the tenanted premises to their original condition, the remedy of the landlord is to adjust the damages in the security deposit or sue the tenant for damages after taking over of the possession.
10.5. Landlord cannot refuse to take over the possession upon determination of lease and offer of possession by the tenant - The landlord, upon determination lease and offer of possession by the tenant, cannot refuse to take over the possession on the ground that the property has been damaged or not restored to its original condition. 10.6. Consequences of the landlord refusing to take the possession offered by the tenant - In the event of refusal of the landlord to take the possession offered by the tenant, the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord and the tenant shall not be liable to pay the Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:15:33 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 27 / 32 rent thereafter.
10.7. Consequences of the tenant refusing to handover the possession - If the landlord is ready to accept the possession but the tenant refuses/fails to handover the possession, the liability of the tenant to pay the rent shall continue till the handing over of the possession. 10.8. Remedy of tenant in case of non-refund of security deposit by the landlord - The tenant cannot refuse to hand over the possession till the security deposit is refunded. In the event of non- refund of security deposit by the landlord, the remedy of the tenant is to sue the landlord for refund of security deposit after handing over the possession.
26 In the instant case, the defendant/ tenant as held above was obliged to hand over the possession by 31.10.2020 for which intention was expressed and thereafter in case the plaintiff/ landlord has not facilitated taking over of the possession under any circumstances would not be entitled to rent for the period.
27 The witness of the plaintiff, Sh. Virender Singh Yadav appearing as PW-1 when cross examined on 29.03.2023, in response to Question no.9 deposed that:- There is no specific procedure /protocol for handing over the possession mentioned by the plaintiff company (Vol. after paying the dues we have issued the NOC to the lessee and the maintenance staff use to take possess after the NOC have been given to them. I have not placed any documents mentioning the abovesaid procedure.
28 The deposition above makes it clear that the landlord/ Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.05.29 17:15:38 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 28 / 32 plaintiff provided no procedure and was not willing to take the possession till NOC is given.
29 This witness in cross examination dated 17.04.2023 further deposed that it is correct that we have not produce any document to proof that on 04.12.2020 defendant had taken any article from the property in question.
30 It transpires from the above facts that the plaintiff/ landlord was responsible for delay in taking over the keys till 04.12.2020 whereas the defendant/ tenant was willing to amicably settle and handover the possession. Thus, the plaintiff companies are not entitled to claim any rent and service charges for the period 31.10.2020 to 04.12.2020 (34 days).
31 In consideration of the above, the rent and other charges for six months (April to September 2020) are adjustable from the security deposits. The defendant is liable to pay rent and other charges only for the month of October 2020. Thus, plaintiff no.1 is entitled to Rs. 2,72,580/- for the month of October, 2020 from the defendant (Ex.PW-1/4). The plaintiff no.2 is entitled for Rs. 67,496/- from the defendant towards power back up for central air conditioning and Light Load and Supply of Power for Central Air Conditioning Plant and Central Air Conditioning Agreement (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6). The plaintiff no.3 is entitled to Rs. 19,470/- from the defendant in terms of Agreement Ex.PW-1/19.
Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:15:44 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 29 / 32 32 In view of foregoing reasons, Issue nos.1 and 3 in Main Suit bearing no. CS (Comm)-590/21 are decided in favour of plaintiffs. In so far as Issue nos.1, 2 and 3 in Counter Claim suit bearing no. 13/2022 are decided against the defendant.
Issue no.2 in Main Suit 33 Since issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are also entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiffs.
Issue nos.4 and 6 of Counter Claim
34. The defendant has claimed loss of Rs. 1 lakhs from the plaintiff for harassment. No evidence has been adduced by the defendant to show any harassment on account of the conduct of the plaintiffs. Rather as discussed above, the plaintiffs are entitled for one month rent and another charges from the defendant. Therefore, issue no.4 is decided against the defendant. Similarly, since the counter claims are decided against the defendant, the defendant is not entitled to the interest as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 5 Counter Claim
35. Both plaintiffs and defendant did not press for this Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:15:51 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 30 / 32 issue at this stage of final arguments, hence, decided being not pressed for.
Relief :
36 In summation, the suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed as follows:-
i). Plaintiff no.1 is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,72,580/-
along with pendente-lite and future simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization, from the defendant.
ii) The plaintiff no.2 is entitled for Rs. 67,496/- along with pendente-lite and future simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization, from the defendant.
iii) The plaintiff no.3 is entitled to Rs. 19,470/- along with pendente-lite and future simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization, from the defendant.
iv) In so far as counter claim filed on behalf of counter claimant is concerned, same stands dismissed for the findings given above.
37 Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:15:57 +0530 CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 31 / 32
38 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
39. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VINEETAVINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 17:16:03 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (VINEETA GOYAL) on this 29th May, 2025 District Judge (Commercial-03) Patiala House Court : New Delhi CS(COMM) :590/2021 & Counter Claim 13/22 Page No. 32 / 32