Delhi District Court
Mrs. Meeta Vij vs Mr. Vikas Mehra on 17 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS - 207979/16
1. Mrs. Meeta Vij
W/o. Mr. S.K. Vij
2. Ms. Shuchita Vij
D/o. Mr. S.K. Vij
Through their Special
Power of Attorney Holder Mr. S.K. Vij
Both R/o. A1/20, 3rd Floor, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110029.
......Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Vikas Mehra
S/o. Late Mr. Shyam Lal Mehra
R/o. C30/35, Roshan Mahel Maldahya
Varanasi, U.P.
Also at
R/o. C380, Ground Floor, Defence Colony
New Delhi - 110024.
......Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 18.11.2014
Date of Reserving of judgment : 21.11.2020
Date of Judgment : 17.12.2020
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 1 of 63
JUDGMENT
1. By virtue of this judgment, the present suit for recovery of money alongwith pendente lite and future interest filed by Smt. Meeta Vij W/o. Sh. S.K. Vij (hereinafter called 'plaintiff no1') and Ms. Shuchita Vij (hereinafter called 'plaintiff no.2') against Sh. Vikas Mehra (hereinafter called 'defendant') is being disposed of.
Plaintiff's case
2. Brief facts relevant to the disposal of the suit are summarized as under :
2.1. The plaintiffs are the joint owners of 2 nd Floor rights of premises bearing no. C233, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110021 (hereinafter referred as 'suit premises') and have filed the present suit through the Special Power of Attorney Sh. S.K. Vij, who is the husband of plaintiff no.1 and father of plaintiff no.2.
2.2. It is averred that plaintiffs entered into a written and registered lease agreement dated 06.02.2013 with defendant, in the presence of competent witnesses whereby defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises for a total period of 36 months from 15.02.2013 till 14.02.2016, upon payment of monthly rental of Rs. 1,20,000/ with an annual increase of 10% every year, over the previous years.CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 2 of 63
The entire period of 36 months was the lockin period as per the lease agreement.
2.3. It is further averred that defendant willfully violated the lease agreement on several counts during his occupation of the leased premises. It is pointed out that defendant not only defaulted in payment of agreed monthly rental to the plaintiff but also gave bad cheques which got bounced. Defendant also allegedly started commercial activities in the leased premises in violation of lease agreement as well as of the municipal bylaws. Further, he failed to keep the lift in safe maintenance, risking the lives of users of lift and fellow residents by not executing a maintenance contract for the lift with an authorised agency.
2.4. It is pleaded that the defendant stopped paying monthly rentals with effect from 15.09.2013 onwards and thus, materially breached the lease agreement. The defendant was thereafter asked to vacate the premises and clear pending dues including damages vide notice dated 18.11.2013 who eventually vacated the same on 22.12.2013. The defendant further ignored the letter dated 14.03.2014 sent on behalf of plaintiffs which listed counts of breach of agreement and identified most of the costs claimed herein.
2.5. It is contended that plaintiffs suffered harassment, humiliation, loss CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 3 of 63 of income, mental pain and agony on account of breach of terms and conditions of the lease agreement, making defendant liable towards cost thereof. A sum of Rs. 14,41,506/ was claimed from the defendant on account of outstanding rent, security deposit, unpaid expenses and damages including cost of harassment to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, plaintiffs were constrained to issue legal notice dated 30.04.2014 to the defendant. Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery for a sum of Rs. 14,41,506/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of notice that is 30.04.2014 till realization.
Defendant's Case
3. Written Statement was filed by the defendant wherein he pleaded that plaintiff willfully concealed the material facts from the court. It is submitted that the plaintiffs took back the possession of the suit premises vide receipt dated 22.12.2013 issued by their Attorney Holder, upon joint determination of the lease deed dated 06.02.2013.
3.1. It is pleaded that defendant had twin requirements of a safe abode for his daughter and an apt accommodation as per the medical condition of his mother while searching for rental property. That the suit premises had a lift, weighed primarily upon defendant in finalising it, coupled with an assurance allegedly given by the CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 4 of 63 Attorney Holder that necessary certificates / maintenance agreement would be handed over to defendant to affirm that lift was in good and safe working condition.
3.2. It is further submitted by the defendant that the appliances / equipments installed in the suit premises on behest of the plaintiff were not in good working condition which entailed the defendant to incur unnecessary expenses. The defendant also claimed to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ to the property agent as commission which ultimately resulted in a loss due to unsatisfactory stay at the premises.
3.3. Defendant admitted having entered into lease agreement dated 06.02.2013 for a tenure of 36 months. It is submitted that the three cheques of Rs. 1,20,000/ each were issued to the plaintiffs as security deposit.
3.4.It is further pleaded that the lift was old and without necessary effective repair, very risky to use and most of the times not functional. It is also pointed out that the family of defendant faced lot of hassles during their short stay in the leased premises as plaintiff never acted upon their assurances to get the defect in the premises rectified. Further, the suit premises required major repairs CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 5 of 63 on account of persistent severe seepage issues. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs / attorney holder being aware of the deteriorated condition of the suit premises cheated the defendant to enter into a lease agreement making false and frivolous representations on account of which defendant decided not to continue with the lease and so communicated his unwillingness to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that termination of lease agreement was mutually agreed upon and it was on account of this consensual arrangement that receipt dated 22.12.2013 was issued by the attorney holder of the plaintiffs upon receiving back the possession of the vacant leased premises.
3.5. It is further submitted that the notice dated 18.11.2013 is nonest in the eyes of law on account of settlement / receipt dated 22.12.2013. It is submitted that notice dated 14.03.2014 is an afterthought and is contrary to mutual settlement arrived between the parties. On the other hand, defendant pleaded to have undergone and suffered mental agony and harassment on account of misrepresentation with respect to deteriorated condition of the leased premises especially the lift therein. It is submitted that the details of the outstanding rent, security deposit, unpaid expenses and damages claimed by the plaintiff are imaginary, contrary to the understanding dated 22.12.2013, false, frivolous, based on mere conjuctures and misconception, also contrary to the lease deed and law of the land.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 6 of 63Defendant pleaded that the present suit was filed only to extract money from the defendant with no cause of action having accrued in favour of plaintiff to claim any relief against defendant.
Replication
4. In replication to the written statement filed by defendant, plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint with the submission that defendant deliberately concealed and twisted the imperative facts to mislead the Court about termination of lease deed upon mutual consensus claiming that receipt dated 22.12.2013 was issued only against acknowledgment on vacant possession of the property without any serious damages, limited to the super structure of the property etc. It is specified by plaintiff that the defendant was fully satisfied with the condition of the property including the functionality of lift as well as other equipments/ appliances installed therein. It is submitted that the defendant has not produced even a single document / evidence to substantiate his complaint of the premises in deteriorated condition. Plaintiff however admitted the seepage problem in the premises and claimed to have undertaken all the necessary repair measures appropriately. The remaining claims and submissions made in the Written Statement were controverted.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 7 of 63Issues
5. On the basis of pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as prayed for ?
(OPP)
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period? (OPP)
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES Plaintiff Evidence
6. PW1 Satish Kumar Vij appeared in the witness box and tendered his evidentiary affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He also relied upon and proved the following documents:
S. No. Ex./Mark Description of document 1. Ex. PW1/1 SPA 2. Ex. PW1/2 Lease agreement 3. Ex. PW1/3 Letter dated 18.11.2013 4. Ex. PW1/4 Postal Receipt 5. Ex. PW1/5 Letter dated 14.03.2014 6. Ex. PW1/6 Postal receipt CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 8 of 63 7. Ex. PW1/7 Tracking report 8. Ex. PW1/8 Receipt dated 06.04.2013 9. Ex. PW1/9 to Bills / receipts of expenses Ex. PW1/12 10. Ex. PW1/13 Bank Statement 11. Ex. PW1/14 Legal Notice 12. Ex. PW1/15 to Postal receipts Ex. PW1/17
6.1. In crossexamination by counsel for defendant, PW1 submitted that the plaintiffs are the owners of the second floor and the defendant came across him through a property agent who was paid a commission of amount of Rs. 75,000/. He further stated that the suit premises was earlier on rent for about eight years prior to agreement with the defendant. PW1 also claimed to have got carried out painting, polishing, upkeep of plumbing and electrical works and the functionality of the lift before handing over the property to the defendant. He further submitted that the lift was not put to use by the earlier tenant but was made duly functional by arranging a site visit of a lift mechanic, operated and shown to the defendant before he took possession of the premises. PW1 admitted being aware of the certification requirement for any working lift and claimed that M/s. Scan Elevators, Lift Maintenance Company checked and made the lift functional although he denied having filed any such certification in Court.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 9 of 636.2.PW1 underlined in his crossexamination that defendant stopped paying the rental particularly from September 2013 onwards. PW1 further stated that he did not refund the security amount on account of breach of terms and conditions of the leased agreement by defendant which made him liable to penalties and forfeiture of security deposit. PW1 denied about having arrived at any mutual consensus with the defendant about adjustment of security deposit against non payment of rent with effect from September 2013 onwards. PW1 however claimed having given benefit of 3 months security deposit to the defendant in the calculations submitted by him as part of his submissions and the evidence.
6.3. PW1 further asserted that the defendant preferred to make cash payment only even though the lease agreement stipulated payment of monthly rentals in the bank account as per the details noted therein. PW1 admitted the documents annexed with written statement at pages 88, 90 to 94 as his acknowledgement of receipt of cash against monthly rentals. PW1 also admitted having received the security deposit of Rs. 3.6 lacs.
6.4. PW1 further submitted during crossexamination that notice dated 18.11.2013 was issued by him on account of persistent breach of CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 10 of 63 terms of lease agreement by the defendant. He also pointed out that meetings were held to sort out the issues in the presence of cousin brother of defendant. He further pointed out that the date to be reckoned for breach of rent not paid would be 15.10.2013 when defendant defaulted in respect of non payment of rent for the first time.
6.5. PW1 stated that he noted the display of sarees in the drawing room of the suit premises in June 2013, however, did not make any formal complaint against selling of sarees of the premises by the defendant.
6.6. PW1 admitted that defendant entered into the agreement only on the condition that the lift would be made functional by plaintiff before handing over premises. PW1 further pointed out that defendant negotiated with M/s. Scan Elevator but never executed any maintenance contract. It is admitted by PW1 that he never obtained any certification requisite under provision of Delhi Lift Rules or under Maharashtra Lift Act 1939. He further submitted that defendant was only trying to escape from incurring the cost of annual maintenance of lift by raising such pleas.
6.7. PW1 further submitted during cross examination that the lift was very much functional and was used by the subsequent tenant under a CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 11 of 63 maintenance contract, however denied having obtained certificate from any competent authority to run the lift.
6.8. PW1 further stated that the seepage in leased premises was detected in the month of July, 2013 in one bed room and the lobby in the ceiling only. PW1 also pointed that he had incurred the expenses for the repair of the damages to the structure caused by seepage and have not added to the damages claimed by the present suit. The defendant vacated the premises on 22.12.2013 against which he had issued a receipt. He admitted having written the contents and signed the receipt. PW1 further submitted that there was no consensus with the defendant about termination of contract. PW1 denied the suggestion that the receipt dated 22.12.2013 issued by him was in satisfaction to the mutual agreement for termination of lease deed between him and the defendant. It was further denied by the PW1 that the entire damages were recorded by himself while taking back the property and nothing more was there to be claimed as stated in the notice and in the present suit. It is further denied that the defendant did not breach the terms of the lease agreement. It is denied that the defendant did not receive letters dated 18.11.2013 and 14.03.2014 and legal notice.
6.9.Plaintiff has further got examined Sh. Devi Singh who appeared in the witness box as PW2 who tendered his Affidavit Ex. PW2/A in CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 12 of 63 evidence and relied upon the following documents :
S. Ex./Mark Description of document
No.
1. Ex. PW2/1 Original bill voucher dated
(Photocopy of 06.04.2013 for Rs. 2190/
same is already
exhibited as
PW1/8)
2. Ex. PW2/2 Original cash memo for Rs. 9400/
(Photocopy of
same is already
exhibited as
PW1/9)
3. Ex. PW2/3 (colly) Original two cash memos dated
(photocopy of 20.02.2014 for Rs. 10,410/ and
same is already 1,08420/ respectively
exhibited as
PW1/10 and
PW1/11
respectively)
4. Ex. PW2/4 Original labour receipt bill dated
(photocopy of 29.12.2013 for Rs. 25,090/
same is already
exhibited as Ex.
PW1/12)
6.10. PW2 clarified that he had experience of 35 years in electrical works, and 8 years in civil works. He further stated that the repair work majorly related to rewiring of the fans on account of extensive use while other electrical equipments in the suit premises were also CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 13 of 63 found damaged. He also stated that the electrical wires of suit premises were damaged / burnt due to heavy load or extensive use. He clarified that he had procured and purchased the required materials himself and that total amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs including Rs. 1 lakh as labour charges was received by him for the entire work.
6.11. Plaintiff further got examined PW3 Sh. Lalit Prasad, Technician with M/s. Scan Elevators Ltd. He affirmed that the lift at property no. C233, Defence Colony, New Delhi was under AMC of M/s. Scan Elevators Ltd. since July 2019. The original document of the AMC document bearing no. LM 2147 was shown and returned whereas copy of the same was exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. He also affirmed that any major repairs were not undertaken by the Company prior to the period noted above. He clarified that the representatives of company conducted the inspection of the lift installed at C233, Defence Colony before taking it under AMC and found it in good working condition.
6.12. In crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the defendant, PW3 submitted that the lift under consideration was repaired around 23 times a year but there was no inspection report of the inspection conducted in 2014 before taking the lift under AMC and that he did not remember exactly when the lift was inspected.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 14 of 63Defendant Evidence
7. Several opportunities were granted to lead defence evidence, however no witness was examined by the defendant and the defendant evidence was closed vide Order dated 04.04.2019.
Arguments
8. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendant willfully breached the terms and conditions of admitted lease agreement causing loss to the plaintiffs thus making himself liable for recovery of losses inclusive of damages. Counsel for plaintiff denied having consented to mutual termination of contract and pointed that attorney holder fairly issued the receipt of taking back possession after casual inspection of property which is being misread by opposite counsel to the undue advantage of defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharasthra & Anr. bearing Crl. Appeal No. 73 of 2007 decided on 13.09.2013 to put across that attorney was well within his right to appear and prosecute this case on behalf of the actual owners of leased premises. A detailed calculation sheet was filed as part of supplementary written submissions on behalf of the plaintiff. It was also submitted that security deposit was forfeited on account of breach CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 15 of 63 of contract by defendant.
9. Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that Sh. S.K. Vij (PAO holder) had no authorization on behalf of the plaintiffs to sign and verify the plaint under P.O.A dated 14.11.2014 while Attestation of the plaint, authorization of the Attorney Holder and signature on vakaltnama were appended by Attorney Holder before execution of POA that the present suit is defective under Order III Rules 1,2 (a) & Order VI Rules 14, 15(1), 15(3), 15(4) CPC.
9.1. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has further argued that receipt dated 22.12.2013 admitted by Attorney Holder estops him to claim any losses or damages as it amounts to mutual agreement upon termination of contract. He also argued that defendant never acted in default of terms of lease deed and clarified that non payment of rent for three months was on account of mutual arrangement of adjustment of security deposit against three months rental.
9.2.Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following rulings to substantiate his case:
1. Gurdev Singh Bindra V/s. Ranbir Singh 169(2010) DLT 680
2. Kusum Kumria & Ors. Vs. Pharma Venture (India) Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr. 224 (2015) Delhi Law times 68 (DB) CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 16 of 63
3. Prakash Chander Kaushik Vs. M/s. Vishal Timer Traders & Anr.(Delhi High Court, Review petition no. 364 of 2016 in RFA No. 163/1986)
4. S. Varyam Singh Duggal Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi ILR (1984) Delhi 214
10. I have heard counsels for the parties and have perused the record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under :
Decision & Reasoning Issue No.1 and 2
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as prayed for?(OPP)
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period? (OPP)
11.Onus to prove these issues is upon plaintiff. Both the issues are being taken up for discussion together, second one being extension and elaboration upon determination of first issue. The entire dispute in the present case revolves around lease agreement Ex. PW1/2. The execution of the said Lease Agreement is not in dispute. Lease Agreement was executed on 06.02.2013 whereas the effective lease period commenced from 15.02.2013 which was to expire on 14.02.2016. The lease was terminated by plaintiff vide vacation notice CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 17 of 63 dated 18.11.2013 Ex. PW1/3. The leased premises was eventually vacated by the defendant and the possession was handed over back to the plaintiff vide possession receipt dated 22.12.2013.
12. Plaintiff has preferred the present suit of recovery of an amount detailed under various heads in the plaint as well as in the evidentiary affidavit Ex. PW1/A. The said recovery is primarily based upon assertion of willful violation of the terms of lease agreement Ex. PW1/2 by the defendant, during the possession of the leased premises. PW1 has affirmed that the defendant has been a habitual defaulter in making payment of the agreed monthly rental payment . PW1 has further asserted that the defendant never paid the rent as per and in terms of the stipulations mentioned in the lease agreement and on several occasions, either objected to pay in cash or the cheques, he issued towards payment of monthly rent got bounced. He further asserted that the defendant never abided by the due dates mentioned in the lease agreement for making the payment. PW1 further affirmed that the defendant started commercial / business activities in the brand name "Roliana" in the premises which was meant exclusively for residential use as per the stipulations of the Lease Agreement. Affirmation was also made that defendant failed to execute a maintenance contract for the operation of lift with an authorised agency, putting the life of fellow residents and the property as a whole unit at risk. PW1 also affirmed that the defendant willfully stopped paying monthly rent w.e.f. 15.09.2013.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 18 of 63PW1 has been extensively crossexamined by counsel for the defendant. No evidence has been led on behalf of defendant in this matter.
13. The entire claim made in this case, thus, is based upon the plaintiff having to prove willful and material breach of terms of contract as laid down in the lease agreement Ex. PW1/2.
Payment of monthly rental within specified dates 13.1. Clause 2 of the lease agreement Ex. PW1/2 stipulates that a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ per month towards the rent to be increased by 10% every year was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Clause 3 notes that the payment of monthly rent was to be made in advance by 15th of each month by cheque or DD or by automatic transfer to the bank account of the lessor with the account details mentioned as part thereof. It is apparent that the payment of monthly rent was primarily made in cash by the defendant to the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant had put the documents annexed with the written statement at pages 88, 90 to 94 to PW1 as his acknowledgment of receipt of monthly rent in cash by the plaintiff which were admitted by PW1 as Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/12. These receipts clearly note that the payment was made in cash either upon dishonour of the cheque issued or otherwise so meant to be. The payment in cash was duly received by the plaintiff and the CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 19 of 63 receipt issued thereof. It seems that any forceful objection to the repeated payment of monthly rental in cash was not raised or put forth by the plaintiff to the defendant. The dates in the said receipts were mostly subsequent to 15th of the month for which payment was being made.
13.2. Clause 4 of the Lease Deed notes that delay in payment of the rent by the lessee would make him liable to a charge of Rs 1000/ for delay upto 14 days and thereafter to a charge of 2500/ upto a delay of 1 month and any further delay would amount to breach of the agreement leading to termination thereof, forfeiture of deposit or advance and penalties. This arrangement has been made subjective to the agreement or arrangement or settlement otherwise made by the parties. The acknowledgment receipts otherwise admitted by PW1 nowhere note any objection on the part of the PW1 to, either nonpayment of monthly rental on time, i.e. on or before 15th of the month, in advance or mode of payment in cash. Plaintiff always had the option of putting across his objections to defendant even while issuing the manual receipts of payments. PW1 nowhere affirmed having raised any such objection or reservation about nonpayment of timely monthly rental or mode of payment. Plaintiff also chose not to apply any charges on account of delay in the monthly rental payment at the time of receipt of payment in cash, thus impliedly chose to waive the strict application of stipulations with respect to CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 20 of 63 payment of monthly rent as noted above.
13.3. PW1 has categorically affirmed that the defendant neglected to pay the monthly rental by making various lame excuses. Neither is there any elaboration of any particular month prior to the period for which rent has been sought nor any such excuse put forth by the defendant has been categorically brought on record, for the Court to assess the same. It therefore appears to be a general assertion made by PW1 qua the conduct of defendant during occupation of the leased premises about payment of monthly rent.
Commercial Activities
14. PW1 has further affirmed that the defendant started using the leased premises for commercial / business activities which amounted to material breach of terms of agreement. Clause 7 of Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2 bounds the Lessee to use the Leased premises for the exclusive purpose of residence for him and his family. There is absolutely no evidence apart from a bald affirmation made in the affidavit Ex. PW1/A about defendant having indulged in any commercial or business activity at the leased premises. PW1 has also not put forth the basis of his claim or the credibility of any such information having been received by him or any such objection raised at any point of time with the defendant apart from its mention in the final vacation notice issued by the plaintiff CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 21 of 63 to the defendant qua termination of the lease agreement and vacation of the leased premises. PW1 in his crossexamination submitted having seen the display of sarees in the drawing room of the suit premises in June 2013. He also submitted that he chose not to make any formal complaint against, what he saw or what he presumed. It is thus apparent that he chose neither to even clarify from the defendant about his indulgence in any such activity, in material violation, not only of the terms of agreement, but also, as put by plaintiff himself, in violation of the municipal byelaws. It is also noted that the stipulation in Clause 7 do not make mention of any consequence upon default made by the lessee in this respect.
Maintenance Agreement of Lift
15. PW1 has claimed that the defendant willfully violated the lease agreement by using the lift without execution of any maintenance contract with an authorised agency, thus raising concerns about the risk caused to the safety of lives of users as well as that of premises. Counsel for the defendant has extensively crossedexamined PW1 on this aspect. Clause 5 of the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2 stipulates that the building has a working lift. It also mentions that the lift maintenance would exclusively be the responsibility of the lessee or in sharing, if so agreed, with the first floor dweller. PW1 during crossexamination admitted that the defendant entered into the lease agreement upon an CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 22 of 63 assurance of functional lift. That there was a lift in the premises, is not in dispute. That duly functional of lift was a primary reason for the defendant having chosen the leased premises is also admitted. The primary issue raised by the plaintiff is non execution of maintenance agreement by the defendant with an authorised lift maintenance agency. PW1 submitted in crossexamination that the defendant negotiated with M/s. Scan Elevator but never took any maintenance contract. PW1 has maintained in his affirmation as well as crossexamination that the lift was very much functional during the period of possession of leased premises by the defendant. PW1 had admitted that the defendant indeed complained about the functionality of the lift on couple of occasions during beginning of stay. Three such occasions have been detailed by PW1 in his crossexamination wherein he had called the technician at his own cost, to dispel the concerns raised by defendant qua functionality of the lift. PW1 denied that it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to enter into a maintenance contract about the lift. Plaintiff also produced Sh. Lalit Prasad, Technician with M/s. Scan Elevators Ltd. who affirmed that the Annual Maintenance Contract of the lift at the leased premises commenced from 21.07.2014. He also produced the original AMC documents as Ex. PW3/A. It is clear that this document pertain to a maintenance contract taken by subsequent users /tenants and thus, do not pertain to the period of possession of leased premises by the defendant. Nothing conclusive however was stated by PW3 about working condition or due functionality of lift CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 23 of 63 during subsistence of applicable lease period.
15.1. Counsel for the defendant during crossexamination of PW1 also put forth queries about noncompliance of various legal mandatory requirements with respect to operation of the lift in any building. He pointed out that certain legislation required certifications about the installation, operation and maintenance of lift in any building from the respective authorities, so as to avoid any risk to the life of any user of the said lift and also to the building. PW1 conceded that he has neither obtained nor placed on record any such certification, mentioning that the lift was put in place by the builder at the time of construction of property.
15.2. It is apparent that the functionality of the lift remained a contentious issue between plaintiff and the defendant for one reason or the other during the period of possession thereof. It is apparent that the plaintiff has not filed any certification or document certifying or substantiating that the lift installed in the building was duly maintained and fully functional at the time of commencement of the leased period. PW1 himself has stated that the lift was not put to use by the previous tenants. So the proper functionality of the lift remains a contention to be proved on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant has not led any evidence to show that lift indeed was not functional or was never put to use or caused frequent interruptions CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 24 of 63 in its enjoyment or usage during possession of the leased premises by the defendant. There is no reason mentioned or suggested by counsel for defendant as to why the Annual Maintenance Contract was not entered into by the defendant. There is nothing to suggest that the necessary certification from the authorities as putforth by the counsel for plaintiff during crossexamination of PW1 were sought or asked by the defendant at the time of taking the property on lease or execution of the lease deed or even thereafter during the use of the premises. There is nothing to suggest that the absence of necessary certification hampered the purport of defendant to obtain an Annual Maintenance Contract from the Agency. Non compliance of the statutory provisions and the necessary consequences, it may entail, is however primary responsibility of the owner of the Leased premises but that does not totally absolve the lessee either from the requirement of obtaining the maintenance contract being immediate front user of the said lift.
15.3. It was incumbent upon lessor to handover the requisite Inspection Report right before handing over of the leased premises or the execution of the lease deed to show that the lift was duly operational prior to its handing over, thus casting the responsibility on the defendant to then maintain the lift by executing annual maintenance contract with an authorised agency. The owner has chosen to lease out the premises. Usage of lift is a necessary value CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 25 of 63 addition to the amount of rental being charged by him. It is important for the owner also to act dutifully and professionally while handing over the leased premises or while executing the lease agreement with the lessee. The lessor earns the rental amount out of the leased premises which is fixed on the basis of facilities provided for convenient usage of the said leased premises. It was the responsibility of the owner to show without any doubt that the lift was duly operational and in safe working condition having been maintained prior to handing over of the leased premises. Plaintiff cannot take refuge in his assertion that the lift was not being used by the previous tenant and now since the premises has been leased out, it was the responsibility of the defendant to keep the lift safe for the users. The owner cannot be absolved of his primary duties to handover the leased premises including the lift in safe working condition. The lessee is not expected to enter into a maintenance contract necessarily even prior to shifting or taking over the possession of the leased premises. The lease agreement Ex. PW1/2 nowhere specifies any particular period in which the defendant was supposed to get AMC for the operation of the lift. No inspection report of lift has been filed for plaintiff. It is accordingly inferred that the plaintiff himself did not give necessary and due importance to the safety of the user of the lift at the time of handing over the possession of the leased premises and thus cannot claim its benefits thereof, putting all the blame upon defendant having willfully CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 26 of 63 violated the terms of the agreement.
Non payment of monthly rental
16. PW1 affirmed that the defendant willfully stopped paying monthly rental with effect from 15.09.2013 onwards, materially breaching the stipulations of the lease agreement. He further affirmed that defendant was requested to make payment of the monthly rental even through his relative Mr. Burman who also asked the defendant for payment of rent and also to fix a date of vacation of premises. He further stated that upon consequent non payment of monthly rent from 15 th Sep, 2013 onwards, a notice was issued by the plaintiff on 18.11.2013 to defendant to vacate the premises. This letter has been placed on record as Ex. PW1/3 and the postal receipt as Ex. PW1/4. Though receipt of this notice has been admitted on behalf of defendant, however, any reply was not given by the defendant thereto. The leased premises was eventually vacated in terms of the notice on 22.12.2013. PW1 in his crossexamination submitted that notice dated 18.11.2013 was issued when the non payment of rent persisted even after a meeting was held in the presence of cousin brother of defendant. He also submitted that the date to be reckoned for non payment of rent would be 15.10.2013. He also declined the suggestion that the defendant never breached the terms of Lease Agreement or that there was any agreement vide receipt of 22.12.2013 to settle the dispute. He also submitted that the discussion CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 27 of 63 took place with the defendant in the presence of his cousin for settlement but the defendant did not act responsibly and was only playing games. He also denied that the receipt dated 22.12.2013 issued by him was in satisfaction to the mutual agreement for termination of lease deed between him and defendant. As per notice Ex. PW1/3, defendant was asked to vacate the premises in sound condition and wind up the agreement. PW1 during crossexamination admitted having issued a receipt on 22.12.2013 at the property site, while defendant handed over the property to him. He also admitted having carried out an inspection of the property while receiving the vacant possession and noted in the said receipt that the property was in fair overall condition. Counsel for the defendant suggested to PW1 during crossexamination about receipt dated 22.12.2013 having been issued in satisfaction to the mutual agreement for termination of lease deed which was categorically denied by PW1 during his crossexamination. PW1 denied having issued receipt dated 22.12.2013 to settle the dispute between plaintiff and defendant and rather affirmed that defendant vacated the premises on 22.12.2013 in utter breach of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
16.1. During the course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff was put a query about specific date when the defendant stopped paying monthly rental. The plaint as well as the evidentiary affidavit filed by PW1 notes that the defendant willfully stopped paying the CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 28 of 63 monthly rent since 15.09.2013, although during crossexamination, PW1 specified the date to be 15.10.2013. In the written arguments filed by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also, the date is however mentioned as 15.09.2013 with the specifications about mode of payment and the receipt of payment.
16.2. The fulcrum of the issue now hinges upon whether the factual non payment of rent for three consecutive months can be termed as a willful violation of the terms of agreement Ex. PW1/2. Defendant has not led any evidence in this respect.
16.3. The premise taken by counsel for defendant as can be inferred from the questions or suggestions put by Counsel for defendant to PW1 during crossexamination is that there was no willful violation of the terms of agreement by non payment as the matter was negotiated and settled between the parties wherein it was agreed that the premises would be vacated and the security amount would be adjusted against the claim for three months rent. There is no contrary claim made by counsel for defendant that the monthly rent for three months prior to vacation of the lease premises on 22.12.2013 was paid by defendant to plaintiff. Accordingly, counsel for the defendant has conceded to the month of September, precisely 15th Sep, 2013 to be the date for non payment of monthly rental.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 29 of 6316.4. PW1 has categorically and persistently denied having entered into any sort of settlement at any point of time with the defendant. PW1 has however admitted having negotiated the issues upon non payment of monthly rental by defendant in the presence of cousin brother of defendant.
16.5. There is nothing categorical on record brought by / on behalf of defendant to substantiate the contention of a settlement having been arrived between the parties and the adjustment of security deposit against monthly rental or termination and vacation of the leased premises. The vacation notice Ex. PW1/3 also notes that the defendant held back the monthly rentals and thus have committed material breach of the agreement.
16.6. Clause 4 of the Lease Deed notes that delay in payment of monthly rental beyond period of one month would constitute breach of the agreement leading to its termination and forfeiture of deposit unless otherwise agreed between the parties or settled. That the monthly rental for three months was not paid, is not a point in contention between the two sides.
16.7. Defendant claims that there was a settlement for adjustment of CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 30 of 63 three months security deposit against non payment of monthly rental but he has not led any evidence to so prove that. PW1 conceded that the negotiations took place and the defendant was asked in the presence of his cousin brother Mr. Berman for payment of monthly rental and a suitable date for vacation but there was no breakthrough. Defendant had the option of leading evidence to show the outcome of any such negotiation and also to call Mr. Berman in the witness box but he chose not to do so. There is nothing in writing for the Court to decipher or conclude that any settlement or agreement was arrived at between plaintiff and defendant, contrary to what is being reflected by the documents on record. The receipt dated 22.12.2013 issued by PW1 to the defendant at the time of taking over the possession of the leased premises only notes about the factual taking over of the leased premises and cannot be inferred to hint about any settlement having taken place between the parties. The vacation of leased premises on 22.12.2013 can be taken to be a necessary consequence of the vacation notice dated 18.11.2013.
16.8. Clause 20 of the Lease Agreement notes that the agreement can be terminated by either party at its option via written notice of termination to the defaulting party who committed a breach of the agreement and fails to cure the said breach within 30 days, after receipt of notice from the other party. The vacation notice dated 18.11.2013 was received by the defendant on 20.11.2013, as CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 31 of 63 affirmed by PW1, whereas the defendant factually vacated the premises on 22.12.2013. The vacation notice was also a notice of termination of the lease deed, which called for vacation of the leased premises in lieu of the breach of terms of agreement by the defendant and defendant accordingly vacated the premises in almost 30 days upon receipt of the said notice.
16.9. There is nothing brought on record on behalf of defendant to show that PW1 agreed at any point of time for adjustment of security deposit against the non payment of monthly rental. The security deposit of Rs. 3,60,000/ made in terms of Clause 4 of the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2 was meant to be refunded by the lessor on the expiry or sooner upon determination/termination of the Lease with the vacation and handing over of the peaceful physical possession of the leased premises from Lessee to the Lessor. This refund has been made subjective to the adjustment of any unpaid dues qua the leased premises. Thus, in the absence of PW1 having admitted, in word or by conduct any sort of settlement with the defendant or any agreement qua non payment of monthly rental while being in possession of the premises, without any evidence having been led on behalf of defendant to prove, in contrary, it cannot be held that there was any settlement or agreement between the parties qua non payment of monthly rental while being in possession of the leased premises or pre term adjustment of the CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 32 of 63 security deposit against the monthly rental due to be paid, while so being in possession thereof.
16.10. The security deposit was meant to be refunded at the time of expiry of the lease deed or sooner upon determination/termination of the lease deed while handing over the physical peaceful vacant possession of the leased premises. The security deposit, as the term suggests is an additional deposit in the hands of lessor, over and above the monthly rental, for some sense of security to Lessor to cover up for any sort of unpaid dues / losses / damages to the property. The security deposit, thus, cannot be taken to be purportedly used by the lessee for non payment of the monthly rental without its acceptance on the part of lessor, who is under an obligation to refund back the interest free security deposit back to the Lessee at the time of receiving the possession of the leased premises.
16.11. The lessor is under an obligation to make payment of the monthly rental during his possession of the leased premises as per the covenants of the lease deed irrespective of the security deposit given to the lessor as his claim upon the security deposit would entail only upon vacation of the leased premises and handing over the physical vacant peaceful possession back to the lessor. The vacation notice dated 18.11.2013 and receipt dated 22.12.2013 CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 33 of 63 issued by PW1 cannot be read and inferred as any acceptance on the part of plaintiff to adjustment of interest free security deposit against the unpaid monthly rent. In the entire lease deed Ex. PW1/2, consequence only of non payment of monthly rental beyond specified date has been given and has been termed to constitute necessarily a breach of the agreement.
16.12. Defendant, while being in possession of the leased premises, undisputably, stopped paying the monthly rental w.e.f. 15th September, 2013 to the defendant till the date of vacation of the leased premises on 22.12.2013. Defendant has not put forth any credible reason in consonance with the covenants of the lease deed Ex. PW1/2, justifying such non payment. No evidence having been led on behalf of defendant, only cross examination of PW1 can be delved into, for understanding the case of defendant, wherein, PW1 categorically and persistently denied having given any such authority by way of agreement or settlement or negotiation otherwise to defendant for adjustment of the security deposit against non payment of monthly rental. PW1, as evident from the record was constrained to issue the vacation notice Ex. PW1/3, only upon non payment of the monthly rental by the defendant while continuing to be in possession of the leased premises without any communication or reason why the defendant chose not to make the payment of the monthly rental. Non payment of monthly rental CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 34 of 63 for three months by the defendant to plaintiff while continuing to enjoy the possession of the leased premises is held to be a material breach of the agreement Ex. PW1/2, committed by the defendant.
17. Plaintiff has claimed the recovery of dues in this case, spread under various heads, which shall be deliberated upon in the following paragraphs. Prior to venturing further into the viability of the monetory claims made by the plaintiff under various counts, this court would first deal with certain legal objections taken by Counsel for the defendant during the course of arguments in this case.
Legal Objections
(i) Defective Authorisation of Sh. S.K. Vij
18. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that Mr. S.K. Vij who has filed this case as Power of Attorney Holder was not authorised on behalf of plaintiff to sign and verify the plaint under Special Power of Attorney dated 14.11.2014, with the specific objection that the attestation of the plaint was made before the date of execution of Power of Attorney and authorisation of the attorney holder. He also specified that the vakalatnama was signed and executed by the attorney holder prior to execution of Power of Attorney. He argued that the suit was defective under Order III R 1, 2 (a) CPC and Order VI Rule 14, 15(1), CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 35 of 63 15(3), 15(4) CPC.
19.It is noted that this argument was not taken by counsel for the defendant at the time of crossexamination of PW1 as Special Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of plaintiff. It is also noted that this objection was not taken in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant.
20.Vakalatnama filed by counsel for the plaintiff notes the date of 30.10.2014. The Special Power of Attorney whereby plaintiffs appointed and authorised Sh. S.K. Vij as their lawful attorney with respect to certain acts or deeds qua the suit property in question., was executed on 14.11.2014. The suit was filed on 15.11.2014 and was assigned to the Court on 18.11.2014. The plaint as well as affidavit in support of the said plaint bear the date as 05.11.2014.
21.It is apparent that the Special Power of Attorney was created as a document subsequent to the signing of vakalatnama, filing of plaint and swearing an affidavit in support of the plaint. It is apparent that Mr. S.K. Vij has been dealing on behalf of plaintiffs, who are the actual owners as their nominee, having been authorised orally, by intent and by conduct to deal with almost all the aspects of the property since the beginning of transaction between plaintiff and defendant at the time of entering into lease agreement or receiving of the monthly rental or taking back the physical possession of the leased premises. The entire CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 36 of 63 dealing of the defendant throughout the transaction in question has been with the attorney holder Sh. S.K. Vij. Accordingly, Sh. S.K. Vij was the most suitable person to even come to Court and represent the plaintiffs as owners as he transacted with the defendant at all times with respect to lease in question.
22. It is clear that the formal document has been executed subsequent to the swearing in of the affidavit or signing of vakalatnama on behalf of plaintiff or filing of plaint, however, their intent on the part of plaintiffs having nominated or authorised Sh. S.K. Vij as their Attorney Holder or an Authorised Representative was never in doubt. Accordingly, the lapse as pointed out by counsel for defendant is a procedural, technical and incidental default which is neither incurable nor fatal to the case of the plaintiff, more so, when no such objection was taken at the time of filing of written statement or at the time of evidence being led by Sh. S.K. Vij as the Power of Attorney Holder. Taking this objection at the fag end of the case in question, without any prejudice, as such having been shown to be caused to the interest of the defendant, would not help the case of the defendant. The objection taken by Ld. Counsel for defendant in this respect is rejected.
(ii) Estoppel
23. The other objection taken by counsel for defendant is that the lease deed in question was terminated by vacation notice dated 18.11.2013 CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 37 of 63 seeking vacation of the premises by plaintiff to the defendant, thus, the plaintiff is estopped from seeking any damages or penalty or recovery of any other amount in consequence and as appurtenant to the said termination.
24.There is no doubt that the lease deed was terminated by plaintiff. Vacation Notice dated 18.11.2013 called for such termination as well as for vacation of the leased premises. The possession of the premises was handed over by defendant to the plaintiff vide admitted receipt dated 22.12.2013. Vacation notice sets out the reason why plaintiff terminated the lease. The reasons may or may not be factually acceptable to the defendant and even may or may not be legally feasible. Defendant never challenged the factual premise taken by the plaintiff in the said Vacation Notice dated 18.11.2013 and simply vacated the premises. The Vacation Notice took respite of the relevant clause of Ex. PW1/2 Lease Deed to justify the termination on account of certain lapses on the part of defendant.
25. Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act lays down the principle of estoppel, the basic object thereof being to promote equity, to prevent fraud and to promote honesty and good faith between the parties. It is about a representation made by a party to the other, leading the other to believe thereupon and act. It is about acting upon the misrepresentation, thus, having been misled on account of a declaration, act or omission on CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 38 of 63 the part of any person with an intention to cause the other person to believe and act upon such belief.
26.In the case at hand, there were apparently certain points of contentions between plaintiff and defendant during the operation of lease deed. There were negotiations and efforts to put things right but the relationship eventually broke. The positive step to terminate the relationship was taken by plaintiff by virtue of Vacation Notice Ex. PW1/3. The notice contained the factors which according to him were violative of the clauses of the lease deed, calling for termination of the said Lease Deed.
27.The issuance of notice cannot be termed to be any misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff. Defendant always had the occasion to either challenge the same or put a counter contention to the representations made by the plaintiff in the vacation notice. Defendant, in a way conceded to the termination called by the plaintiff and acted to vacate the leased premises. The receipt dated 22.12.13 as admitted by the plaintiff is only an acceptance of vacant physical possession of the leased premises and cannot be looked and understood to mean anything beyond that. The receipt cannot be inferred to mean that there was any settlement between plaintiff and defendant at any point of time with respect to grounds undertaken by the plaintiff as part of vacation notice. The plaintiff has never occurred to deny what he claimed with respect to CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 39 of 63 the defaults noted by plaintiff as part of vacation notice rather has acted upon it, to send a legal notice and then to file the instant suit. Defendant never countered the said defaults and not even on a single occasion tried to put across that there was any settlement between plaintiff and defendant or that there was any mutual termination of the lease deed which estopped the plaintiff to ask for any damages / penalty / recovery of any amount on account of default of defendant which called for termination of the lease deed. The receipt dated 22.12.2013 also has the same tone and only denotes the handing over of vacant physical possession by the defendant. The receipt is a bare minimum acknowledgment for both sides that the lease deed stood terminated and the possession of leased premises was handed back without any semblance of plaintiff having chosen to ignore or settle the defaults pointed as part of vacation notice.
28. Plaintiff, by asking for termination or by giving vacation notice or issuance of receipt dated 22.11.2013, cannot be stated to have violated the principles of honesty, good faith and conscience or that he acted anywhere in violation of law. Any inconsistent pleas at any point of time have not been taken on behalf of plaintiff to support the claim of plaintiff being estopped from taking benefit from a factual or legal position, arrived on account of his representation made to the defendant.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 40 of 6329.The judgments relied upon by counsel for defendant do not apply directly to the facts of the case and cannot be taken support of with respect to the issue at hand. The plea raised by counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff is estopped from seeking any recovery of money in relation to, consequent to, termination of Lease Deed, do not hold any ground and is answered accordingly.
Recovery on several counts
30. In subsequent paragraphs, this Court shall assess the viability of the actual amount sought to be recovered by the plaintiff under various heads. The details of the said amount have been mentioned in para no. 13 of the plaint. The said details have been affirmed by PW1 in the evidentiary affidavit Ex. PW1/A. The legal notice Ex. PW1/5 also carry most of those details. Specific query was put to counsel for plaintiff with respect to these heads who detailed these as part of para no. 10 of the written arguments. A detailed supplementary calculation as part of final arguments was again subsequently filed on behalf of plaintiff. The detailed bifurcation as provided in Para no.13 of the Affidavit Ex. PW1/A is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
S. No. Particulars Amount
a. Unpaid electricity bills and Rs. 2,530.00
damages to electrical
appliances
b. Refrigerator repair (Rs. 3,750 Rs. 6,850.00
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 41 of 63
wrongly deducted from rent
and subsequent further repair
Rs. 3,100)
c. Lift, service equipment and its Rs. 5,700.00
door closure replacement
d. Rent payment cheques Rs. 1,500.00
dishonour - 3 nos.
e. Delay in payment of rent Rs. 12,500.00
(penalty as per agreement ) 5
times
f. Rent (till the next occupancy Rs. 8,51,226.00
by another tenant -
12.04.2014)
g. Penalty for unauthorized Rs. 25,000.00
occupation since 18.12.2013
@ Rs. 5000/ per day as per
agreement (5 days beyond 30
days of notice period)
h. Difference of rent (less by Rs. 1,21,200.00
new tenant vis a vis this
defendant)
i. Repainting premises, Rs. 1,20,000.00
polishing woodwork (60% of
Rs. 2,00,000/ spent)
j. Repairs to elec. works, glass Rs. 25,000.00
plate of microwave oven
k. Repairs to kitchen cupboards, Rs. 10,000.00
shelves, taps, door locks
l. Water supply bill share to GF Rs. 10,000.00
owner / tenant
m. Cost of harassment Rs. 2,50,000.00
TOTAL Rs. 14,41,506.00
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 42 of 63
30 (a) Unpaid electricity bills and damages to Electrical Appliances: The amount sought to be recovered is Rs. 2530/. Plaintiff has not mentioned as to which electricity bill in specific has not been paid by the defendant while being in possession of the leased premises. Plaintiff has relied upon Clause 11 of the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2. to seek claim under this head. There is nothing filed on record by the plaintiff to show that any electricity bill was unpaid or the cost incurred by the plaintiff with respect to any damage attributable to the defendant. The claim made by the plaintiff under this head is rejected.
30 (b) Refrigerator Repair : The amount sought to be recovered is Rs. 6850/. Plaintiff has again sought support of Clause no.11 and Clause no. 17 of Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2. There is nothing to ascertain whether there was any default on the part of defendant with respect to the working condition of the refrigerator to call for any repair whatsoever or recovery of the said repair cost from the defendant. The instant claim with respect to repair of the refrigerator under this head is rejected.
30 (c) Lift, service equipment and its door closure replacement :
Plaintiff has made a claim of amount of Rs. 5700/ under this head.CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 43 of 63
Plaintiff has relied upon an estimate / bill dated 27.05.2016 placed on record as Ex. PW1/8. Elaborate discussion in the preceding paragraphs has already been made with respect to the functionality of the lift and the right and corresponding liabilities upon plaintiff and defendant with respect to operation of the lift in the leased premises during the subsistence of lease period. It was the responsibility of the plaintiff to handover the lift in complete working condition to the defendant at the time of formal handing over of the leased premises. No certification qua the working condition has been filed on record by the plaintiff at the time of execution of the Lease Deed. Since, there is nothing to ascertain that the lift was in order at the time of commencement of the lease period, it is not equitable for the plaintiff to claim any damages / recovery of repair cost of the lift when he himself admitted the duly operational lift to be the main reason for the defendant to choose to take the premises on lease. PW3 who appeared before the Court as an expert technician of an authorised agency only testified out of his personal knowledge about the working condition of the lift, subsequent to termination of the lease deed and nothing as per record with respect to repair / any certification qua working condition of the lift at the time of commencement or during the subsistence of the lease period. The claim made under this head is also rejected.
30 (d) Rent payment cheque dishonour 3 in number Plaintiff has claimed that the cheque bearing no. 0701932, 0701933 and 0701934, each of Rs. 1,20,000/ got dishonoured. Plaintiff has relied upon CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 44 of 63 a bank statement dated 27.05.2016 placed on record as Ex. PW1/13 as well as the admitted cash receipts placed by the defendant alongwith his written statement. Counsel for the defendant himself duirng the crossexamination had put these receipts filed by the defendant alongwith his written statement to PW1 who admitted having issued the same. It is accordingly admitted that the cheques in question issued as security cheques at the time of execution of the lease deed were dishonoured. However, cash payment was made in lieu of those dishonoured cheques which were duly received by the plaintiff without any protest of dishonour of the issued cheques. The cash receipt was issued as a proof of having accepted cash in lieu of dishonoured cheques as security amount. As the plaintiff chose to accept cash without any claim of charges of dishonour of cheques, he cannot be allowed at this stage to protest the cash payment or any charges qua dishonour of issued security cheques. The claim made by the plaintiff under this head is also rejected.
30 (e) Delay in payment of rent (penalty as per agreement) - 5 times The claim made is of amount of Rs. 12,500/. Plaintiff has relied upon Clause 4 of Ex. PW1/2 in support of the claim. The payment of rent was supposed to be made in advance, on or before 15 th of each calendar month in terms of Clause 3 of lease deed Ex. PW1/2. Clause 4 of Lease Deed Ex.
PW1/2 stipulates that any delay upto 14 days shall entail a charge of Rs. 1000/ and Rs. 2500/ upto a delay of one month. The lessee resided in the premises for 11 months. Receipt of payment of rent of all the months have CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 45 of 63 not been placed on record. Admittedly, since 15.09.2013 till 22.12.2013, no rent was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff which shall be dealt in separate head. There is no elaboration made by the plaintiff as to how the amount sought to be recovered has been arrived at. The language of the clause relied upon, by the counsel for the plaintiff do not specify that the penalty charges of Rs. 1000/ or Rs. 2,500/ were for default of payment on daily basis. Further, the plaintiff, at the time of receipt of cash on particular dates subsequent to 15th of any month never objected to the acceptance of rent or claimed the penalty delay charges from the defendant or even have registered his objections to the defendant asking him to refrain from making any delayed payment henceforth. Thus it can be inferred that the delay in payment was, in a way conceded by the plaintiff and at this stage, can not be allowed to protest against the delayed cash payment made by the defendant against monthly rentals. It is noteworthy that the plaintiff himself has not relied upon any document apart from the covenants of the lease deed to claim the delay in monthly rental charges. The claim made by the plaintiff under this head is also rejected.
30 (f) Unpaid rent for the period 15.09.2013 to 22.12.2013 of amount of Rs. 3,90,968/ and rent till next occupancy from 23.12.2013 till 12.04.2014 for Rs. 4,60,258/, total amount is Rs. 8,51,226/.
The total amount claimed in this head is Rs. 8,51,226/. The amount claimed has been sub divided under two subheads (a) rent not paid from 15.09.2013 to 22.12.2013 as Rs. 3,90,968/ (b) unoccupancy from CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 46 of 63 23.12.2013 to 12.04.2014 as Rs.4,60,258/.
(a) rent not paid from 15.09.2013 to 22.12.2013 as Rs. 3,90,968/ 30(f)(a) It is admitted that the monthly rent was not paid since 15.09.2013. Counsel for defendant has claimed that a settlement was effected between plaintiff and defendant which called for termination of the lease deed and consequential vacation of lease premises. He also argued that non payment of rent was an arrangement mutually agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant. This premise taken by the counsel for the plaintiff, as can be gathered from the cross examination of the PW1 and also from the pleadings filed by the defendant has already been discussed in detail in preceding paragraph and rejected. There is nothing to suggest that non payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiff was part of any mutual agreement or settlement between the parties. It can not be inferred that plaintiff agreed to adjustment of security deposit amount against non payment of rent at any stage. That there was a default on part of defendant in non payment of rent since 15.09.2013 till the date of vacation of the lease premises has already been so held. In view of the preceding discussion, plaintiff is accordingly held entitled for recovery of monthly rental for three months w.e.f 15.09.2013 to 14.10.2013, 15.10.2013 to 14.11.2013, 15.11.2013 till 14.12.2013 @ Rs.1,20,000/, which comes out to be Rs.3,60,000/. Adding the rentals for remaining 8 days, as per the calculations submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff, the claim of Rs. 3,90,968/ under this sub head is accepted.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 47 of 63(b) unoccupancy from 23.12.2013 to 12.04.2014 as Rs.4,60,258/.
30(f)(b) An amount of Rs. 4,60,258/ has been claimed under this head. The premise of making this claim rests upon Clause 1of Lease Agreement Ex. PW1/2 wherein period of lease was agreed to be 36 months commencing from 15.02.2013 and remained valid upto 14 th February, 2016, unless supplemented / modified by another written lease agreement between the parties. It is mentioned as part of Clause 1 that entire period of 36 months shall be lockin period.
30(f).1 Clause 2 of the Lease Deed stipulates that the monthly rental shall increase by 10% over the previous one after passing of every 12 months towards the rent for the entire tenure of the lease agreement. The claim made by the plaintiff rests upon the assertion of 'lockin period' of the lease agreement. Plaintiff has claimed monthly rental from 23.12.2013 till 12.04.2014 after handing over of the vacant physical possession of the leased premises till the occupancy by the new tenant under a new lease agreement. Thus, the monthly rental charges have been claimed from the defendant on the basis that he incurred loss of monthly rental on account of premises having lied vacant for a period of few months till occupancy by a new tenant.
30(f).2 There is a simple bare minimal terminology of 'lockin period' used in Clause 1 of the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2. It is important to understand and read through the intentions of the parties behind the CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 48 of 63 covenants of any agreement. It is also important to decipher the emphasis laid upon any particular covenant and the liability upon the parties to perform their respective obligations in respect of that.
31(f).3 It is noteworthy that the entire lease period of 36 months has been termed to be 'lockin period'. It is mentioned however that it can indeed be modified or supplemented.
30(f).4 There is no consequential penalty burdened upon the defaulting side upon breach of this clause. Clause 19 and Clause 20 of the Lease Deed provide for determination / termination of the lease deed. Timely non payment of monthly rental has consequences attached in terms of Clause 4 of the lease deed but any such corresponding penalising consequences have not been attached with the covenant of the 'lockin period'.
30(f).5 It is not specified that any vacation of premises within the 'lockin period' would entail the monetary consequences or otherwise. There are reasons taken note of by the plaintiff for termination of the lease deed which led to vacation of the premises by the defendant. It is not simplicitor case of vacation of premises, totally at the behest of defendant in breach of 'lockin period' clause calling for payment of monthly rental charges for the 'lockin period' or for the period of unoccupancy till the occupancy by the subsequent tenant qua leased premises. Plaintiff has CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 49 of 63 nowhere elaborated as to how he categorically suffered any pecuniary loss on account of vacation of leased premises by the tenant within the prescribed 'lockin period'. There are variables attached to the situation such as the efforts put in by the plaintiff for the occupation by the next tenant. Covenants of the subsequent lease agreement entered into, the circumstances which led to vacation of the leased premises by the tenant in question. A bald claim made by the plaintiff on the basis of lockin period without explaining each penny of pecuniary loss suffered by him, on account of vacation of leased premises (within the supposed lock in period) with no prescribed consequences of such breach, do not satisfy the conscience of the court to be able to allow this claim. The claim is accordingly rejected.
30(f).6 In terms of discussion made, claim of Rs. 3,90,968/ out of total claim amount of Rs. 8,51,226/ is accepted.
30 (g) Penalty for unauthorised occupation from 18.12.2013 till 22.12.2013 @ Rs. 5000/ per day (5 days beyond 30 days of notice period) :
An amount of Rs. 25,000/ has been claimed under this head. The vacation notice Ex. PW1/3 is dated 18.11.2013. The receipt of this notice is admitted. The date of vacation of leased premises is also admitted. PW1 has himself affirmed that the notice Ex. PW1/3 was dated 18.11.2013 and received by the defendant on 20.11.2013, so 30 days period in terms of CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 50 of 63 Clause 20 of the lease deed Ex. PW1/2, therefore, concluded on 19.12.2013, thus, there was occupation of 3 days over and above 30 days as stipulated in Clause 20. It is noteworthy that the vacation notice Ex.
PW1/3 did not specify any date in particular, for the vacation of the leased premises. However, as the notice terminated the lease deed, it was not protested by the defendant at any stage, as per Clause 20 of the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/ per day in terms of Clause 19 for 3 days which brings the total to Rs. 15,000/. A sum of Rs. 15,000/ out of claim of Rs. 25,000/ thus is partially allowed under this head.
30 (h) Difference of rent (less by new tenant vis a vis this defendant) :
An amount of Rs. 1,21,200/ has been claimed under this head. This amount was mentioned to be as Rs. 2,92,600/ in the detailed supplementary calculation filed as part of written arguments by counsel for the plaintiff. The amount of Rs. 1,21,200/ or Rs. 2,92,600/ is practically based upon the claim of lockin period asserted by counsel for the plaintiff and discussed in the previous head. Reading the discussion made under previous head where the claim made by counsel for the plaintiff for the unoccupied period was rejected, plaintiff has not been able to prove his claim with respect to the amount claimed under this head as well. This claim is also rejected.
30 (i) Repainting premises, polishing woodwork (60% of Rs. 2,00,000/ CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 51 of 63 spent) , 30 (j) Repairs to electrical Works, glass plate of microwave oven, 30 (k) Repairs to kitchen cupboards, shelves, taps, door locks 30(i)(j)(k) (i) Plaintiff has relied upon documents placed on record as Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/12 to support his claim made under this head.
Plaintiff also produced PW2 Sh. Devi Singh who tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW2/A and relied upon documents Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3. These are the same documents which were relied upon by PW1 as Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/12. These documents are primarily the cash estimates filed by contractor for undertaking repair work in the premises after vacation. PW2 affirmed that the repair work was assigned by PW1 in December 2013 with respect to the suit premises wherein upon inspection, several electrical appliances were found damaged and unoperational. Similarly, there was plumbing repair and wood work damage repair carried out by the respective plumber and carpenter. He also affirmed that repainting the entire premises was also carried out. The documents placed on record in support of the affirmation are estimates mentioned on cash memo which has no name of the shop or store from where the purchase has been made or any signature of the shop owner. The estimate includes labour charges also. No photographs or otherwise have been placed on record to show the condition of the premises which required all these repairs necessarily. Defendant has not led any evidence, however Ld. Counsel for the defendant extensively crossexamined PW2 on this aspect. There is CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 52 of 63 nothing to ascertain whether the material for which estimates were provided are actually being used as part of the repair work or whether any repair to the extent of claim as sought by the plaintiff was actually desired. The receipt dated 22.12.2013 admitted by the plaintiff notes that the property was fair in overall condition. It is clear that only a prima facie assessment could have been made by PW1 at the time of taking over physical possession of the leased premises which he fairly did and noted down the observations. This factual observation of PW1 has rather been relied upon by the counsel for the defendant.
30(i)(j)(k) (ii) The duty of repair of the items of everyday normal use and minor damages was cast upon the lessee in terms of Clause 12 of the Lease Deed. PW2 has been able to satisfactorily answer about the inspection of the suit premises and the basic work undertaken by himself and other labours, although there is no yardstick to actually apply to assess the extent of damage or the amount which was required to be spent by defendant to put things in basic minimum order while handing back the possession of leased premises. Clause 17 also comes in support of the claim made by the plaintiff to the extent that an obligation was put upon the defendant to restore all sanitory electricals and other fittings and fixtures or installations/ equipments at the time of handing over of the premises back to the lessor in as good condition as they were at the time of leasing out the premises. The work of painting and polishing, do not fall within the requirement of Clause 17 of the Lease Deed. There is no CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 53 of 63 assertion that the condition of paint on the walls or the polishing of woodwork was damaged or disfigured by the defendant during the subsistence of lease period. It is to enhance the face value of the leased premises that the repainting of the entire premises was resorted to by the plaintiff. However, as the electrical and sanitary fittings were damaged and changed / repaired, some damage to the finishing of the walls or woodwork is expected which presumably required to be freshly painted / polished, incurring expenses to that extent. Considering the discussion made above, an amount of Rs. 50,000/ as part of the claims is hereby allowed, out of these 3 heads, as payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
30(l) Water supply bill share to GF owner /tenant The claim made under this head amounts to Rs. 10,000/. Plaintiff has relied upon Clause 17 of the Lease Deed to support this claim, however, any water bill or the period for the unpaid water bill has not been specified by the plaintiff. Plaintiff accordingly has not been able to satisfy his claim under this head, hence this claim is rejected.
30 (m) Cost of harassment -
30(m)(i) Plaintiff has sought Rs. 2,50,000/ as cost of harassment. The amount sought, however has not been detailed for an assessment to be made by the Court. Plaintiff has not enlisted any factor to be considered by the Court to understand as to how effectively plaintiff suffered a loss CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 54 of 63 justifying grant of cost to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. This is more so, as the amount has been claimed under specific heads separately as per the expenses incurred on behalf of plaintiff on account of alleged breach of terms of the lease deed.
30(m)(ii) Counsel for the plaintiff, during the course of his arguments submitted that the security deposit of Rs. 3,60,000/ stands forfeited on account of breach of agreement in terms of Clause 4 r/w Clause 20 of the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2. PW1 submitted in his crossexamination that he has not refunded the security deposit however gave benefit thereof in submitted calculations. PW1 further stated that the defendant became liable for forfeiture of security deposit on account of breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. It is noteworthy that the vacation notice Ex. PW1/3 which called for termination of the lease deed never made a mention of forfeiture of the security deposit. It was mentioned to be a notice to vacate the premises in sound condition and wind up the agreement. Legal notice Ex. PW1/5 which the defendant has not admitted to have received, also makes no mention specifically of the forfeiture of deposit of security amount. The legal notice however mentions about a proposition of vacation of premises by 20.11.2013 and make payment of two months rent out of the outstanding on 15.11.2013 before seeking any concession qua the penalties. This arrangement apparently did not work out because of which the plaintiff was constrained to issue vacation notice on account of continuous non payment of rent by defendant despite being CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 55 of 63 in possession of the leased premises. Nonpayment of rent has already been held to be a breach on the part of defendant. The forfeiture of security deposit to the tune of Rs. 3,60,000/, thus can be taken to be a penalty of the breach of agreement. It is noted that any benefit of security deposit was not given in calculations, as also clarified by Counsel for plaintiff during arguments and submission of supplementary calculation sheet.
30(m)(iii) Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act entitles the party who suffered by breach of contract to receive compensation for loss or damage caused to him from the party who broke the contract. The yardstick of assessment or quantification of the compensation amount is the loss or damage which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they entered into contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. A rider has also been given to such quantification, that is, no compensation ought to be given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
30(m)(iv) The claim of amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as cost of harassment has been made over and above the forfeiture of amount of Rs. 3,60,000/ as security deposit. Further, if there were any means existed to remedy the inconvenience caused on account of nonperformance of the contract, those must be taken into account in estimating the loss or damage thereof.
30(m)(v) Section 74 of Indian Contract Act stipulates that if a particular CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 56 of 63 amount has been mentioned in the contract itself, payable in case of breach of contract, then the party who suffered by way of such breach, is entitled to receive reasonable compensation, not exceeding the penalty so specified, from the party who broke the contract, whether or not the actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby.
30(m)(vi) The principles recognised to ascertain the liability of parties upon breach of contract have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fateh Chand Vs. Balkishan Das 1963 AIR 1405, wherein the Court categorised the measure of damages in two classes of cases (i) where the contract names a sum to be paid in case of breach and
(ii) where the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty. It was further held, "in all cases, therefore where there is a stipulation in the nature of penalty for forfeiture of an amount deposited.... the court has jurisdiction to award such sum only as it considers reasonable, but not exceeding the amount specified in the contract as liable to be forfeited. Subsequently, in the case of Maula Bux Vs. Union of India, 1970 AIR 1955 the Court held as follows :
"the expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" is intended to cover different classes of contracts which come before the Courts. In case of breach of some contracts it may be impossible for the Court to asses compensation arising from breach, while in other cases compensation can be calculated in accordance with established rules. Where the Court is unabel to assess the compensation, the sum CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 57 of 63 named by the parties if it be regarded as a genuine pre estimate may be taken into consideration as the measure of reasonable compensation, but not if the sum named is in the nature of penalty. Where loss in terms of money can be determined, the party claiming compensation must prove the loss suffered by him."
30(m)(vii) In Kailashnath Associates Vs. DDA, Civil Appeal No. 193/2015 the principles applicable to Section 74 were reiterated and the Court held that, " .....damage or loss caused is sine qua non for the applicability of Section 74" The Court held that any sum mentioned in the contract is open to judicial probe on the anvil of reasonableness. In the instant case, security deposit of Rs. 3,60,000/ was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as a security for due performance of the contract, to cover any loss that may occur during the subsistence of lease period returnable upon culmination thereof.
31. Clause 4 is imperative to be read with respect to the security deposit. The security deposit was interest free and was to be held as security during the term of the lease. The relevant portion of Clause 4 is reproduced hereunder for the purpose of better understanding :
" The amount held as Security Deposit subject to adjustment of unpaid dues by the Lessee, if any, in respect of the demised premises such as electricity, water, maintenance charges, damages, if any, shall be refunded by the LESSOR on the expiry of sooner determination / termination of this Lease, with the vacation and handing over of peaceful, physical and vacant possession of the premises by the LESSEE to the LESSOR."CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 58 of 63
32.The amount paid to the lessee was to be refunded subject to adjustment of unpaid dues in respect of leased premises such as electricity, water, maintenance charges and damages. Clause 20 contains the stipulation for forfeiture of deposit in the eventuality of termination from lessor's end against the lessee. As the deposit is a particular quantified amount, there is no dispute with respect to the amount as such. The unpaid dues including even the rent, repair and maintenance charges have been separately claimed by the plaintiff and those claims have been adjudicated in the preceding paragraphs. Cost of harassment as damages have also been separately claimed. Non payment of rent has been held to be a breach of terms of contract between the parties, however, there have been irregularities on the part of plaintiff as well, especially with respect to operation of the lift as well as the seepage issue which presumably caused inconvenience to the defendant in enjoyment of the leased premises. Plaintiff had the means to assess and to prove the actual damage or loss suffered by him in terms of claims made by him under various heads in the factual contours of this case. Court is not bound by liquidated amount mentioned in the contract but has to adjudge only a reasonable amount to be paid to the person who suffered on account of breach. Plaintiff cannot claim, both, forfeiture of security deposit as well as cost of harassment together. It is also noted that Lessee was entitled to an interest of Rs. 15% per annum on the due amount of security deposit in case of any delay by the Lessor in terms of clause 4 of the Lease Deed. In this case, the difference in rent CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 59 of 63 not paid, apart from other claims have already been partially allowed and granted in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff has used the amount of security deposit of Rs. 3,60,000/ for more than 6 years without any interest thereon, the usage constitutes sufficient compensation in addition to the amount already awarded. Thus, plaintiff is directed to refund the entire security deposit of Rs. 3,60,000/ in favour of defendant within three months from date of decree failing which he shall be liable to pay future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of expiry of three months till the date of realisation.
33. The claims sought as allowed or disallowed or partially allowed on the basis of discussion in the previous paragraphs, are tabulated hereunder for ready reference :
S. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.)
a. Unpaid electricity bills and Nil (Rejected)
damages to electrical
appliances
b. Refrigerator repair (Rs. 3,750 Nil (Rejected)
wrongly deducted from rent
and subsequent further repair
Rs. 3,100)
c. Lift, service equipment and its Nil (Rejected)
door closure replacement
d. Rent payment cheques Nil (Rejected)
dishonour - 3 nos.
e. Delay in payment of rent Nil (Rejected)
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 60 of 63
(penalty as per agreement ) 5
times
f. Rent (till the next occupancy 3,90,968 /
by another tenant -
12.04.2014)
g. Penalty for unauthorized 15,000/
occupation since 18.12.2013
@ Rs. 5000/ per day as per
agreement (5 days beyond 30
days of notice period)
h. Difference of rent (less by Nil (Rejected)
new tenant vis a vis this
defendant)
i. Repainting premises,
polishing woodwork (60% of
Rs. 2,00,000/ spent) 50,000/
j. Repairs to elec. works, glass
plate of microwave oven
k. Repairs to kitchen cupboards,
shelves, taps, door locks
l. Water supply bill share to GF Nil (Rejected)
owner / tenant
m. Cost of harassment Rejected
TOTAL 4,55,968/
Amount to be refunded by 3,60,000/
the plaintiff to defendant
34. Further, a prayer to award pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of notice i.e. 30.04.2014 CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 61 of 63 till its realisation has been made. It is noted that any particular rate of interest has not been specified in the legal notice Ex. PW1/14. Further, the Lease Deed Ex. PW1/2 also do not contain any such stipulation. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if interest @ 9% p.a. is granted on the decreetal amount of Rs. 4,55,968/. Accordingly, interest @ 9% per annum is granted from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, future interest @ 6% per annum is also granted till realization of the principal amount.
35. In view of the above discussion, Issue no. 1 and 2 stand decided in terms thereof.
Relief
36. As discussed, a decree of Rs. 4,55,968/ (four lakhs fifty thousand nine hundred sixty eight only) is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Plaintiff is also burdened to refund the entire security deposit of Rs. 3,60,000/ in favour of defendant within three months from the date of decree else he shall be liable to pay future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of expiry of three months till the date of realisation.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 62 of 6337. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
38. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (SHELLY ARORA)
on 17.12.2020 Additional District Judge 01(SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS - 207979/16 Meeta Vij & Anr. Vs. Vikas Mehra Page 63 of 63