Delhi District Court
Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt Ltd vs Nbcc India Ltd on 21 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02,
SOUTH, SAKET, DELHI
CS DJ No.326/2020
1. M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Through Mrs. Seema Kothari
Director
Having its Office at:
NBCC Plaza, Tower-III
4th Floor, Sector-5, Pushp Vihar,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
....Plaintiff
Versus
1. NBCC (India) Ltd.
Through its General Manager
Real Estate Division
Having its registered address at:
NBCC Bhavan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
Also at:
NBCC Plaza
Pushp Vihar
New Delhi-110017.
....Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 11.09.2020
Date of reserving judgment : 09.12.2025
Date of judgment : 21.01.2026
JUDGMENT
CS DJ 326/20 Page 1 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
1. This is a suit for declaration, permanent & mandatory injunction filed by plaintiff against defendant.
2. In brief, as per plaint, plaintiff is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant is also a limited company formerly known as National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited.
3. It is stated that a plot of size 24280.568 sqm. situated in Sector-V, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi was allotted to NBCC i.e National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited, now known as NBCC (India) Ltd, on lease hold basis by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. Thereafter, defendant constructed ground plus five storeied community-cum-commercial complex known as NBCC Plaza on the said plot of land as per sanctioned plans from local authorities. It is stated that the suit property is part of this very NBCC Plaza constructed by defendant.
4. It is stated that plaintiff participated in the tender floated by defendant for sale of built-up spaces in NBCC Plaza and offered plaintiff to purchase a built-up space/suit property in the same. The plaintiff was given presentation of the building by stating that commercial complex would be a prominent place of business in South Delhi. In pre- bid meeting, plaintiff was shown the front side of the CS DJ 326/20 Page 2 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
building as the entrance with two water fountains and an entrance to mesmerize one and all. It is stated that NBCC projected the building as one of its kind and represented that the offer of allotment of a space in the building was once in a life-time and ensured that plaintiff falls in the trap for buying a space in the said commercial building.
5. It is stated that vide allotment letter dt.13.06.2007 bearing letter no.NBCC/RE/PushpVihar/2007/860 defendant accepted the offer of purchase for the built-up space/suit property as mentioned above by the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,86,95,321/- and accordingly allotted built-up space at 4th Floor (Lot No.XI), at NBCC Plaza, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
6. It is further stated that accordingly, on 07.07.2007 plaintiff duly represented through its Director Mr.Sunil Kothari entered into an agreement to sell with defendant which at the said relevant time was known as National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited qua sale of the suit property. It is stated that vide said agreement to sell dt.07.07.2007 buyer i.e M/s. Om Metal Ratnakar (P) Ltd undertook to make payment of entire balance amount within stipulated time.
7. It is further stated that as per clause 8 of the Agreement to sell, defendant was entrusted with duty to manage for the maintenance of the building. Thus, ever since the said possession of the suit property the plaintiff has been duly CS DJ 326/20 Page 3 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
making payments towards all the allied charges as made applicable and duly demanded by defendant from time to time. It is stated that it was duly agreed between the parties vide para 3 of the agreement to sell it shall be the duty of seller therein i.e defendant herein to complete the sale and effect conveyance of property to buyer i.e M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar (P) Ltd. by executing sub-lease in favour of buyer after getting the format of sub-lease approved from L & DO. However, till date no conveyance deed/sub-lease has been executed in favour of plaintiff.
8. It is stated that since plaintiff were charged astronomically as maintenance bills for their space in the building, the plaintiff vide a letter dt.08.08.2014 sent a very detailed letter highlighting the issue of exorbitant maintenance bill & redressal of their long outstanding grievances. The plaintiff had clearly written in the said letter that they have deposited the maintenance charges under protest and requested for correction in the maintenance bills as the same was being charged for those services, which in fact were never provided.
9. It is stated that although the plaintiff was assured that building would be a state of art building in as much as it would be an honour and privilege in having an office in this prestigious building "NBCC Plaza" but plaintiff feels let down for more than one reason. It is stated that in the pre-bid meeting, plaintiff were shown the front side of building as their entrance with two water fountains and an CS DJ 326/20 Page 4 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
entrance to mesmerize one and all and ironically the plaintiff had been forced to use the ingress and egress to their office space from the back portion of building. It is stated that neither any fountain nor any greenery is in the premises and out of the two lifts mostly one lift is only operative and the other is always tagged as broke-down. The plaintiff always are in constant fear as they always apprehend that the working of the other lift will also get affected and broke down at any time.
10.It is also stated that time and again plaintiff as an allottee had objected to the covering of atrium as consequently these common space after the said covering had been used by various institutes, although the space was termed common but it always remained in the active control and possession of the ground floor allottee, who had exploited these covered atrium as library or canteen for these institutes. Although the plaintiff had lodged their objections from time to time but NBCC had been a mute spectator, which resulted in the act of covering the atrium (about 557 sq.) which in any case is absolutely illegal and has consequential effect.
11.It is further stated that plaintiff highlighted that there is a prominent under-construction site adjoining the building, which is causing great hardship to the allotees. The plaintiff were made to understand that this under- construction site, which had been under construction for more than 5/6 years was meant for construction of CS DJ 326/20 Page 5 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
additional shop for whatever reasons, but the fact of the matter is that the said under construction site is actually eating up the common space, which had been duly charged from the plaintiff & other allotees.
12.It is further stated that plaintiff had been allotted a super-
area of 9467 square feet against which the covered/carpet area available for their usage comes to 5800 square feet approximately, which means their contribution into the common area comes to 3667 square feet which tantamount to loading of approximately 40% of the common space.
13.It is further stated that defendant although presently maintains the common area for and on behalf of the allottees but the ownership and possessory right of these common area is vested with the various allottees and defendant is merely holding this common area for maintenance purposes and in trust for these allottee.
14.It is also stated that defendant ought to seek permission from all the allottees and then only would have executed any construction as the ensuing construction besides being illegal is causing wrongful commercial losses to its allottees, who are actual owner of this common space. The plaintiff is clear in its mind that defendant had already charged and have been paid for this common area and any further constructions of shops and selling by the defendant amounts to unjust enrichments, which in the humble submission of plaintiff is not permissible as per law. This CS DJ 326/20 Page 6 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
under-construction site was to be a water body/landscape as per the original plan.
15.It is further stated that notwithstanding the aforesaid, defendant had been issuing maintenance bills with effect from 17.10.2007, whereas as a matter of fact and records it is crystal clear that the plaintiff had not been provided the facilities so as to qualify the expression "Maintenance services". It is stated that these bills were paid by the plaintiff from time to time and the defendant ought to adjust or refund these maintenance charges. Needless to say, the maintenance charges ought to have been reduced keeping in view the market condition in vogue but unfortunately the defendant is trying to do otherwise.
16.It is stated that for all these years plaintiff had been paying maintenance charges to the defendant-NBCC, which if calculated over the last 12 years amounts to roughly 4-5 crores and against this 4-5 Crores already paid, the plaintiff had been expecting services which were promised to them in 2007. In this regard, plaintiff had lodged their protest on several occasions including way back in January, 2019 with the defendant and clearly told that henceforth plaintiff would not be paying the maintenance amount until and unless all their issues of maintenance as well as registration of conveyance deed were resolved.
17.It is stated that in order to put the records straight plaintiff stated that NBCC is aware of the fact that possession of plaintiff's portion was only handed over to them in CS DJ 326/20 Page 7 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
Aug.2008 although NBCC is claiming maintenance charges from 17.10.2007 and as such in any case, the maintenance bills have to be corrected to that effect. It is stated that although no response was heard from the defendant to the aforesaid letter of the plaintiff but defendant in the most illegal manner got issued a letter no.NBCC/OM/PV/2019/1933 dt.20.12.2019, wherein defendant intimated to plaintiff to clear the outstanding maintenance amount and also mentioned that the maintenance may be discontinued, in case no payment is made to them.
18.It is stated that said letter dt. 20.12.2019 came as a shock to the plaintiff and as such immediately vide a reply letter dt.27.12.2019 plaintiff highlighted their plight and sought attention of defendant towards the issue of immediate concern relating to front & basement parking, landscape, waterbody, which were promised to them and resonated their concern that the very purpose of buying the space in the building -NBCC Plaza stands defeated. The plaintiff also requested to immediately withdraw and/or to keep the letter dt.20.12.2019 demanding maintenance of 49 lakhs in abeyance until all the issues are resolved.
19.It is stated that unfortunately, the letter dt.27.12.2019 of plaintiff was construed to be asking for bifurcating the maintenance demand and as such the defendant/NBCC vide its letter dt.27.01.2020 sent the break-up of maintenance charges, which again according to plaintiff CS DJ 326/20 Page 8 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
was faulty and misleading as they had sought the resolution of all their grievances from NBCC and till that date to keep the demand of maintenance at abeyance. It is stated that plaintiff does not want to mention that they had been waiting patiently all these years since 2014 and have not only paid more than 15.86 Crores as and towards full consideration of allotted space but have paid around 4-5 Crores as and towards maintenance charges for technically no/abysmal maintenance, hence vide its notice letter dt.29.01.2019 asked for refund of amount paid.
20.It is stated that although plaintiff had been depositing maintenance charges under protest all these years but they had been always hoping that NBCC being the in-charge of maintenance facilities being provided to the NBCC Plaza building would take sincere steps in correcting & reducing the maintenance bills and most importantly to resolve the issues which had been pending for the last more than 12 years i.e issues relating to conveyance of the property and providing the maintenance as was envisaged at the time of allotment with parking facilities, water bodies, landscape etc.
21.It is stated that defendant on one hand is raising undue and illegal demands qua maintenance of the suit property and on the other hand is utterly failing in providing even basic facilities to the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff had tried its level best to convince the defendant to correct the maintenance bills and only charge as per the maintenance CS DJ 326/20 Page 9 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
provided by them to the building but defendant is not paying any heed to any request/intercede of plaintiff even after meeting held on 05.02.2020. Due to unprofessional attitude of defendant, plaintiff issued a letter dt.10.02.2020 seeking immediate redressal of their issues but like always defendant sit tight on the same. Plaintiff further issued another letter dt.24.02.2020 beseeching the defendant to solve the issues as discussed in meeting held on 05.02.2020 but to no avail.
22.Defendant filed written statement. It is stated that the plaintiff have not come to the court with clean hands as they are at fault in having not paid the maintenance for the service provided to them by defendant. It is stated that plaintiff has not made the basic payment such as that of electricity bills, cleaning, security etc. which falls under the maintenance services despite enjoying these services continuously and thus have failed to make good of such payment due for maintenance services. Defendant has relied upon point 8 of agreement, wherein it is mentioned that there shall be an increase of 20% in maintenance charges after every three years. It is stated that there is an outstanding of Rs.49 lakhs on the plaintiff towards maintenance charges. It is stated that the plaintiff is guilty of unjust enrichment. Defendant has denied the contents of plaint on merit and has sought dismissal of the suit.
23.Following issues were framed for trial by the court on 16.04.2024:-
CS DJ 326/20 Page 10 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
1. Whether the plaintiff is in breach of terms of agreement to sell dt.07.07.2007? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration that letter no.NBCC/OM/PV/2019/1933 dt.20.12.2019 is nonest in the eyes of law? OPP
3. Whether the maintenance being provided to the defendant in respect of suit property is not as per agreement dt.07.07.2007 and as per market standards?OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to continue to provide maintenance/electricity/water services?OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant its agent, servant, assigns etc. from interfering in peaceful enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff? OPP
6. Relief.
24.To prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh.S.K.Jain, AR as PW-1, who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He tendered and relied upon following documents:
1. Copy of Board Resolution dated 10.05.2024 in my favour Ex. PW1/1.
2. Copy of Tender Document issued by NBCC with respect to sale of Built Space to Private/Govt. Agencies at CS DJ 326/20 Page 11 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor (In Lots) at Pushp Vihar, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/2.
3. Copy of the Allotment letter dated 13.06.2007 issued by NBCC in faovur of Om Metals thereby accepting the offer for Purchase of Built Up Space in NBCC Plaza at Pushp Vihar , New Delhi is Ex. PW1/3.
4. Copy of Agreement to Sell dated 07.07.2007 executed between National Building Construction Corporation Limited and M/s om Metals Ratnakar Pvt Ltd in respect of property bearing no. Built up Space at Forth Floor with parking space at NBCC Plaza situated at Pushp Vihar, Sector-V, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/4.
5. Copy of Receipt dated 05.09.2007 issued by NBCC in favour of Om Ratnakar towards balance payment of Rs. 11,89,95,321/- for sale of Built up Space at Pushp Vihar, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/5.
6. Copy of Letter dated 08.08.2014 issued by M/s Om Ratnakar to the NBCC regarding exorbitant Maintenance Bill Built up Space at 4th Floor of NBCC Plaza, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/6.
7. Copy of notice dated 20.12.2019 issued by NBCC to M/s Om Metal Ratnakar for withdrawal of maintenance services is Ex. PW1/7.
8. Copy of Reply dated 27.12.2019 issued by M/s om Ratnakar to the Notice dated 20.12.2019 of the NBCC for withdrawal of maintenance services is Ex. PW1/8.
9. Copy of Maintenance Bill dated 27.01.2020 issued by NBCC to M/s Om Ratnakar for quarter October 2019 to CS DJ 326/20 Page 12 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
December 2019 for an amount of Rs. 49,00,039 is Ex. PW1/9.
10. Copy of Notice dated 29.01.2020 issued by M/s Om Ratnakar to NBCC for refund of maintenance amount for the old space is Ex.PW1/10.
11. Copy of letter dated 10.02.2020 issued by M/s Om Ratnakar seeking redressal of grievances relating to conveyance/registration of built up space at NBCC Plaza and its maintenance issue, parking issue etc. is Ex. PW1/11.
12. Copy of letter dated 24.02.2020 issued by M/s Om Ratnakar in respect of meeting held on 05.02.2020 with the defendant for redressal of their issues for built up space at NBCC Plaza, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/12.
13. Copy of the Local Commissioner Report dated 17.09.2020 with photographs is Ex. PW1/13.
14. Copy of the suit plaint is Ex. PW1/14.
25.In his cross-examination witness stated that he had not filed any document/photograph/video to show the state of the condition of the premises. He stated that issue of poor maintenance was being raised by the plaintiff company for the last 10-12 years. Again said May be 2010/2012. Witness was shown letter dated 29.08.2014 and after seeing the same, witness stated that plaintiff had received the response to the letter dated 08.08.2014 and volunteer that response was not proper response to the letter of plaintiff. Admitting that the plaintiff never had to shut its operation of offices because of poor maintenance witness CS DJ 326/20 Page 13 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
stated that the office was delayed. At occasions staff reached late because lifts were not functioning/got stuck in the middle.
He stated that he had sent one letter mentioning about this problem giving date and time but he was not sure whether the said letter was filed or not. After seeing the court record, witness pointed out to page no. 101 already Ex. PW1/10 and admitted that date and time of malfunctioning of lift was not specifically mentioned in this document.
26.Admitting that he had not mentioned about commercial loss caused to the plaintiff because of poor maintenance as alleged, he stated that the working of the banking was delayed. The witness admitted that plaintiff had occupied lift lobby for reception purposes stating that there was one reception being operated on behalf of plaintiff company. He, however, volunteered that there was no denial of access to lift. In answer to the question as to the condition of premises in respect of maintenance issue as on date of recording of evidence witness stated that lift was not working; water body and fountain which were installed were not there and ramp from the front gate for going to the basement was closed.
Witness was shown two coloured printouts of water fountains Ex. PW1/D-1 and D-2., which he admitted were of the same building but stated that these were not the fountains which he had mentioned.
CS DJ 326/20 Page 14 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
Witness admitted that in letter Ex.PW1/8 it was written that in the absence of conveyance deed/sale deed/sub-lease, it would be a great difficulty to pay the maintenance amount to the defendant and volunteered that this was because the title was not clear. The witness admitted that it was not written in Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4, that the payment for maintenance of services could be stopped by the plaintiff and volunteered that the defendant had separated maintenance of occupants on the basis of separate letters which was incorrect. In answer to the question if plaintiff had filed any letter having been separately issued to any of the occupants or to plaintiff, the witness stated that he was issued a letter in which it was written that whoever did not pay maintenance will have to pay maintenance at a higher rate. Witness, however, admitted that the copy of this document is not on record. The witness admitted that as per clause 3.28 of Ex.PW1/2, the maintenance charges are for running operation and maintenance of common services such as common lights, lifts, security, DG sets, AC plant room and AHU. Witness admitted that the escalator working in the building does not go up to fourth floor i.e the plaintiff's premises. Witness admitted that he has 15 parking space in the building. Witness admitted that in para 18 of Ex.PW1/A, he had stated that he was given 10 parking space by the defendant which is marked at point A to A and volunteered that they were given ten parking spaces and four days back they were given five more parking space. He stated that they were not informed about CS DJ 326/20 Page 15 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
addition of parking spaces, however, names were put in the parking space indicating that the stated parking spaces belong to plaintiff. No one personally told him about this change but the guard might have told the guard of my company. Witness admitted that plaintiff was awarded 15 parking spaces since beginning, 10 in the lower basement and five on the ground floor, however, stated that this was only on paper and in practice the vehicles were being parked randomly on ground floor. Witness admitted that the vehicles of plaintiff are parked on the allotted places in the basement, however, they are parked randomly on the ground floor.
27.Witness admitted that plaintiff had not requested the defendant for the withdrawal of the current maintenance agreement and further execution of fresh maintenance agreement. He admitted that letters were being sent by the defendant to the plaintiff for the electricity as well as maintenance services consumed by the plaintiff.
28.Witness stated that in clause 3.8 it was not written that the maintenance charges shall not be paid unless conveyance deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Witness admitted that plaintiff had last paid 50% of the maintenance amount in either October 2024 or January 2025. Witness admitted that plaintiff had not paid any payment to the defendant after the aforementioned payment. He also admitted that plaintiff was using the premises effectively. Witness stated that services not CS DJ 326/20 Page 16 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
provided as per agreement to sell dated 07.07.2007 were common area maintenance; parking; lighting in the entrance and location of entrance was arbitrarily changed; water fountain was not available; one ramp for going to basement had completely been blocked; lift very frequently stuck on the floors and lot of debris and malba was lying in the common area.
The witness was shown agreement to sell dated 07.07.2007 Ex.PW1/4 after seeing which, witness stated that it was written in clause 14 of the agreement to sell that the conditions of tendered documents shall be applicable to this agreement in so far as those which have not been specifically incorporated in this agreement to sell and the party shall abide the same. He volunteered that Clause 3 mentions that sale deed will be executed but which has not been executed despite lapse of 18 years. He admitted that there was no clause to the effect that maintenance can not be raised without execution of sale deed and stated that it was common practice.
29.Witness admitted that the condition of escalator had no concern with plaintiff as it was in front door and plaintiff used back door. Witness stated that front door is of restricted use and back door is used by the plaintiff. Witness stated that Local Commissioner had not mentioned lift number in the report but he was referring to the lift being used by plaintiff.
CS DJ 326/20 Page 17 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
30.He denied the suggestion that issues identified at clause no. 2 to 4 and 6 & 7 mentioned in LC report had been rectified or that these issues had no concern with the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that centralized air condition/power back up/availability of security guard/house keeping were in the right condition on the date of filing suit and also on date of inspection of Ld. LC. He denied the suggestion that the additional construction or the development in the common areas of the premises is NBCC's sole prerogative and the same is not connected with the maintenance service. He denied that atrium is not part of maintenance services provided by the defendant to plaintiff. Admitting that the defendant was entitled to recover charges for maintenance being provided by it to plaintiff he volunteered that it could be recovered at older rate and not on newer rate.
31.PW-2 is Sh. Arun Gupta s/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. In his cross-examination he stated that he had been authorized by his company i.e. M/s Rajeshwari Reality Pvt ltd. to give evidence in this matter. He stated that Mr. S. K. Jain spoke to him for giving the evidence in this matter and volunteered that they had an association and the two were part of that association. He stated that the problems were discussed mutually in that association and he was deposing on the basis of discussions made in the association. He stated that the name of association is Pushp Vihar Commercial Complex Welfare Association.
CS DJ 326/20 Page 18 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
The occupants of NBCC Plaza are part of that association. The witness was not carrying the authority letter on the basis of which he had been authorized to represent the company in the said association.
He stated that his company also had dispute with NBCC with regard to maintenance charge and had filed a case against NBCC in this regard, which is still pending. Witness could not provide the details of the said case. He stated that it was pending before Hon'ble High Court and also in RERA. He stated that it is with regard to maintenance additionally regarding registration of property and ground rent. He admitted that he had not filed any document to support the contents of his affidavit.
32.PW-3 is Sh. Vipin Kumar, who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon copy of Tax invoice dt.02.06.2024 raised for the maintenance service at DLF mall as Ex.PW3/1.
In his cross-examination he admitted that he had not brought the original of Ex.PW3/1 on the date of his examination in-chief i.e 29.07.2024. He admitted that he had not been authorized by the company in whose favour the tax invoice had been issued, to file Ex.PW3/1 before this Court. He admitted that his present company is not having an office in the suit premises. He stated that it was his own knowledge on the basis of which he had stated in his affidavit that maintenance provided by defendant was abysmal. He stated that he did not know whether the plaintiff company had occupied any space in the lift lobby CS DJ 326/20 Page 19 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
of the fourth floor of the suit premises where the plaintiff company also has its office. He stated that neither he had read nor he was aware of any maintenance agreement executed between plaintiff and defendant. He stated that he had no information regarding non-payment of maintenance amount by the plaintiff to defendant. He stated that he had come to depose in this matter as a plaintiff's witness on the instructions of Mr. S.K.Jain/AR in the present suit, who called him over phone to come and depose in the matter. In answer to the question that when he was not aware about the terms of maintenance agreement executed between plaintiff and defendant then on what basis he was saying that the requisite maintenance services were not being provided by the defendant to the plaintiff, witness stated that as and when he visited the suit premises and saw the same and compare with the premises of DLF, it was visible that maintenance services being provided by defendant were not up to mark. He admitted that he had not filed any photographs or documents to substantiate his aforementioned statement. He denied the suggestion that proper maintenance services were being provided by the defendant in the suit premises.
33.To support its case defendant examined Sh.Abhishek Deshmukh as DW-1, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He also tendered following documents:
Ex.DW1/1 is the original authorization letter/office order dt. 28.07.2025; Ex.DW1/2 is copy of agreement to sell dt.07.07.2007; Ex.DW1/3 is copy of NIT or Tender Document;
CS DJ 326/20 Page 20 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
Ex.DW1/4 (colly.) is copy of letters demanding outstanding maintenance amount for the maintenance services provided to plaintiff by defendant dt.10.05.2016, 09.09.2017, 30.09.2019, 18.07.2020, 19.07.2020, 20.12.2019 & 27.01.2020; Ex.DW1/5 is copy of letter dt.28.08.2014; Ex.DW1/6 (colly.) is copy of letters dt.22.05.2020 & 20.10.2020; Ex.DW1/7 is statement of account as on 30.06.2025 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as the document was not filed alongwith the written statement); Ex.DW1/8 is electronic certificate under section 63 of the BSA, 2023.
In his cross-examination witness stated that he was deposing on the basis of record maintained by NBCC and also had personal knowledge regarding the case. With respect to Local Commissioner's report witness stated that some of the things might not have been working as they are mechanical things but as on the date of evidence everything was working fine. He stated that all the lifts in the premises were working properly as per his personal knowledge and there was no debris in the compound. Witness denied that there was encroachment of Atrium in the NBCC Plaza premise. He stated that services provided by NBCC in the building include security 24x7, housekeeping work of common area, lifts, AC, power backup, horticulture, maintenance of electro mechanical equipments and that it includes maintenance of fountains also. He stated that NBCC has maintenance dispute only with the plaintiff and one more occupant of the suit premise and that he could tell the name of the other occupant. He stated that the dispute with the other occupant is not related to maintenance. He stated that he will have to ask from legal team regarding the dispute with other CS DJ 326/20 Page 21 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
occupant. He admitted that common area was open for use to all the occupants in NBCC Plaza. He stated that defendant had dispute relating to maintenance with plaintiff since 2019. He stated that there was no dispute in relation to maintenance being provided by NBCC prior to 2019 and again said that he did not know whether there was dispute prior to 2019.
It was stated that NBCC was using services of M/s. Nimbus Harbor Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. for maintenance and at the time of filing of suit maintenance was with M/s. BPMV. He stated that there was no dispute between NBCC and BPMV. He denied the suggestion that NBCC was charging more maintenance charges than other such agencies in the vicinity.
34.Arguments were advanced by Ms.Beenashaw N.Soni, Ms. Mansi Jain & Ms.Katyani Malhotra, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff as also by Sh.Rajnish Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for defendant. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by parties.
35.Upon the basis of evidence and arguments issue-wise findings are as under:-
36.Issue No.2:-. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration that letter no.NBCC/OM/PV/2019/1933 dt.20.12.2019 is nonest in the eyes of law? OPP And
37.Issue No.3:- Whether the maintenance being provided by the defendant in respect of the suit property is not as per CS DJ 326/20 Page 22 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
agreement dated 07.07.2007 and as per market standards? OPP The onus to prove both these issues was on the plaintiff.
38.The plaintiff's case is that the defendant, though responsible for maintaining the building, has failed to do so. The plaintiff alleges that the front entrance with two water fountains and water bodies, shown at the time of the agreement is now in a neglected state; that out of the two lifts available at back side for use by plaintiff, one is almost always out of order and the other is also poorly maintained; that the defendant has not executed the sale deed as per agreement; that despite the common areas belonging to all allottees, who pay maintenance charges, the defendant is unlawfully constructing shops in these areas; and that the atrium, a common space, has been encroached by ground-floor allottees with the defendant's acquiescence.
39.On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that the plaintiff has been able to produce only a single letter from 2014 alleging poor maintenance; the allegations of encroachment are baseless and unsupported by any documentary evidence; PW-1 himself admitted that the plaintiff is occupying the lift lobby area for reception purposes without permission; the Local Commissioner's observations regarding non-functional escalators on the ground and first floors are irrelevant, as the plaintiff's premises is located on the fourth floor; despite several lifts CS DJ 326/20 Page 23 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
being functional in the building, the plaintiff could not identify which lift was allegedly non-operational; and that the plaintiff never sought withdrawal or renegotiation of the maintenance agreement despite alleging various deficiencies.
40.The plea of plaintiff is that defendant is not providing services in terms of contract and therefore, could not have issued the above letter asking for payment of dues. The letter which is Ex.PW1/7 says-
"...inspite of repeated requests via our numerous letters as well as verbally, we have not received the payment yet, not even partial payment. Please be intimated that as on date sum of Rs.34,74,647/- have become due on Om Metal office against the maintenance dues... If we do not receive the payment within 10 days from the date of issue of the letter, we will withdraw the maintenance services from 29.12.2019 without further notice".
41.The first communication by the plaintiff alleging unsatisfactory maintenance is the letter dated 08.08.2014, in which concerns similar to those raised in the present suit were mentioned. The defendant replied on 29.08.2014, and PW-1 has admitted receipt of this reply. It was recorded in the letter that the plaintiff was making issue out of a non issue; it never wrote to the defendant about any maintenance related issue; uninterrupted AC, power, lifts, housekeeping; power backup; water supply; horticulture maintenance; and STP services were being provided. It CS DJ 326/20 Page 24 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
was written in the said letter that the plaintiff was not paying maintenance timely and was in default of Rs. 117433/ as on the said date. It is written that the Defendant management has already condoned the bill upto April 2008 and suffered a loss of Rs 1.73 Cr. It is written that the alleged malba in fact was construction material for ongoing construction required to be carried as per MCD instructions. It is written that NBCC as maintenance agency had no control over encroachments made by buyers and that plaintiff itself had encroached upon the entire fourth floor lobby, which could be dangerous in the event of fire. It is written that plaintiff has itself closed the door opening to the staircase in front side and, therefore has to use lifts in the backside. It is written that the defendant was managing services with great difficulty on account of non payment of maintenance charges by allottees.
It would be important and relevant to note that the plaintiff despite having given a statement of truth regarding all relevant documents having been filed, did not file this reply of defendant, which was received by it. The plaintiff appears to be guilty of giving false statement of truth, which was introduced in Commercial Courts Act with a purpose.
42.No further correspondence on this issue is on record until 2019, showing clearly that the plaintiff did not dispute facts mentioned in the letter, which are reproduced hereinabove. On 20.12.2019, the defendant issued CS DJ 326/20 Page 25 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
impugned letter to the plaintiff stating that maintenance services would be withdrawn, if dues remained unpaid. The plaintiff responded on 27.12.2019 seeking a bifurcation of the maintenance charges. It was claimed that because of non execution of sale deed the plaintiff was facing challenges and that the letter be withdrawn till the sale deed was executed; to which the defendant replied on 27.01.2020 giving bifurcation of dues. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent additional letters dated 29.01.2020, 10.02.2020, and 24.02.2020 seeking redressal of its grievances. It asked for break up in terms of services asking as to what money was being charged for which services all through not making the payment of maintenance charges.
43.Relevantly, the plaintiff has not denied the fact that the maintenance charges have not been paid for a long time. PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff had not paid any amount on account of maintenance to the defendant from October, 2024/January, 2025. Prior to that 50% of the amount as was due was paid in terms of order of Hon'ble High Court.
44.The witness admitted in his cross-examination that Centralized Air conditioner/power backup/availability of security guard/house keeping were in right condition on the date of filing of suit and also on the date of inspection by local commissioner. The witness admitted that the letters were being sent by the defendant to the plaintiff for CS DJ 326/20 Page 26 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
the electricity as well as maintenance services consumed by the plaintiff. Witness admitted in his cross-examination that no commercial loss was caused to the plaintiff because of poor maintenance, stating that the work, however, got delayed. He also admitted that the plaintiff did not have to shut operation of its offices because of poor maintenance as alleged in the plaint, however, added that the office got delayed and at occasions staff reached late because of non- functioning of lifts. The witness in this regard relied upon Ex.PW1/10, a letter dt. 29.01.2020, wherein it is written that most of the times lift is not functioning properly and staff/visitors/outsiders used to complain regarding malfunctioning of lift. The witness, however, admitted that no specific date is mentioned in the letter.
45.The plaintiff has alleged that one of the two lifts was always marked as non-functional, however, has not specified which. PW-1, when specifically questioned, admitted that no document or photograph depicting the condition of the premises had been filed. Considering that lifts are electrical installations, occasional breakdowns requiring periodic maintenance are not uncommon. The plaintiff has not specified any particular period during which the lift remained non-operational and has merely made a general allegation without producing any supporting evidence. If the conditions of lifts was as bad as the plaintiff has tried to make, it could have on the least given dates on which the lifts were not operational between January 2020, the date of its letter till September CS DJ 326/20 Page 27 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
2020 when the suit was filed or any date after the filing of suit with or without photograph.
46.Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that the report of Ld. Local Commissioner supports the averments of plaint and the same having not been challenged by the defendant is a binding evidence. In support of her contentions she relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Levi Strauss & Co. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal, RFA 127/2007 & CM Nos. 3247/2007 & State of U.P.through the Collector, Etawah Vs. Smt. Ram Sri, 1975 SCC Online All 191.
Relevantly at the time of inspection of the site by the Ld. Local Commissioner the lifts were found running smoothly, centralized A.C was found functioning smoothly and both the parties admitted that there was no problem of power backup. Both the parties also admitted that the security guard/house keeping was satisfactory. In the letter Ex.PW1/10 the plaintiff has made complaints regarding air conditioning system which it admitted before Ld. Local Commissioner and in cross-examination that it was working properly at the time of filing of suit and also at the time of inspection by Local Commissioner. Therefore, there is no evidence with the court to conclude that the lift did not function on any particular date or on which particular date the air conditioning system was non- functional or if there was any issue with power backup, if at all as stated in letter Ex.PW1/10.
CS DJ 326/20 Page 28 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
47.The plaintiff had raised the issue of enough parking space having not been provided to the plaintiff in the plaint. In his cross-examination, however PW-1 admitted that plaintiff was allotted 15 parking spaces in the building. He admitted that in his affidavit he stated that he was given 10 spaces by the defendant and volunteered that 10 parking spaces were given and 5 more parking spaces were given four days back. A perusal of plaintiff's cross-examination would show that there was a clear allotment of 10 parking spaces in lower basement and 5 on ground floor. He admitted in his cross-examination that plaintiff's vehicles were parked in allotted spaces in basement. He, however, stated that at the ground floor the vehicles were parked randomly. Random parking of vehicles at ground floor therefore, was norm as per evidence of PW-1. The witness also admitted that escalator mentioned by LC in his evidence were not being used by the plaintiff. The letter of defendant holds importance in this regard, where it is mentioned that the plaintiff itself has closed the gate towards the main entrance staircase permanently and was thus not using the front entrance out of its own choice, which fact has not been refuted by the plaintiff.
48.It was argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that under the agreement to sell, the common areas were held in trust for all allottees and cannot be altered or commercially exploited without their written consent (reliance has been placed on Chaudhary chandra Veer Singh & Anr. Vs. President of Ark City Residents & Anr., CS DJ 326/20 Page 29 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
2023 SCC Online All 488. Despite this, the defendant is stated to have allowed the covering of the open atrium and permitted encroachments and unauthorised constructions within the common areas. The defendant had very specifically written to the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/5 that as a maintenance agency the defendant had no control over such encroachments while also mentioning that the plaintiff had itself made encroachments. In the written statement, the defendant contended that the land forms part of the common area and that the plaintiff has no individual claim over the common area. As per defendant the plaintiff is running its reception office in the lobby near the lift. PW-1 admitted in cross examination that plaintiff had occupied lift lobby (which is common area) for reception purposes. He volunteered that there was no denial of access to lift. The fact, however, is that the area unauthorisedly occupied by plaintiff is common area. The rule for common area laid down in the aforementioned judgment was that such area shall be available to all and no one shall be restricted from using the said area. The plaintiff has not specifically mentioned as to which portion of the area, the plaintiff has been denied access to; how it was being used by the plaintiff and how the plaintiff is being denied to use the same now. In any case the plaintiff itself being guilty of encroaching of common area cannot say that it will not pay the maintenance because common area has been encroached by other occupiers and the defendant has not done anything about it.
CS DJ 326/20 Page 30 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
49.The onus to prove issue no.2 was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff was supposed to prove that the impugned letter was illegal, against the terms of contract, violative of any provision of law or of contract because of which it needed to be declared nonest. The plaintiff has not been able to prove that the letter was illegal. The letter apparently was for non payment of dues by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has admitted that it has not paid the dues. Therefore, the defendant having demanded the dues by way of letter cannot be considered as having worked beyond law or contract. The plaintiff has not challenged that the specified amount in the letter was incorrect as per the computations done in terms of agreement between the parties and has not given any amount, which according to it was the correct amount and should have been demanded by the defendant. The witness admitted in his cross- examination that as per clause 3.28 of Ex.PW1/2, the maintenance was to be paid by plaintiff to the defendant and that it was not written anywhere in the contract that if sale deed was not executed the plaintiff shall not pay maintenance charges.
50.The record shows that the plaintiff filed application under Order II rule 2 CPC stating that the Suit was being filed by it for declaration & Injunction related to raising of illegal demand of maintenance bills to the plaintiff. It further says that the plaintiff was not pressing for any relief of execution of conveyance deed and sought leave of the CS DJ 326/20 Page 31 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
court for suing for all such reliefs except the specific ones separately.
51.Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had purchased the subject property on the assurance that the project would be developed as a state-of-the-art commercial complex with world-class maintenance and aesthetics. It is contended that the present condition of the premises, coupled with the substandard maintenance services being provided by the defendant, has caused considerable prejudice to the plaintiff and has adversely affected his reputation before his clients. It would not be out of place to mention here that PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that he never requested the defendant for either withdrawal or renegotiation of the prevailing maintenance agreement despite alleging deficiencies. The plaintiff thus admitted that it never tried to renegotiate the terms of maintenance except for having written one letter in 2014 (which was duly replied) and thereafter having started to write letters after the defendant sent notice asking for payment of dues.
52.Clause 3.28 of the tender document inter-alia provided that maintenance of the entire complex would remain with NBCC, and that monthly pro rata maintenance charges at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq.ft of the allotted saleable super area would be payable. Thus it stipulates that maintenance charges are payable at a fixed rate calculated on the basis of the super area. Plaintiff's claim for giving bifurcation of CS DJ 326/20 Page 32 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
bill on the basis of services therefore, was not as per agreement.
53.Payment of maintenance charges is a recurring contractual duty of the Plaintiff. Even if the Plaintiff proved certain deficiencies in the maintenance services, such deficiencies can only give rise to a separate claim seeking the deficiencies to be cured. They do not entitle the Plaintiff to withhold the entire maintenance amount for an indefinite period even for the services which are being provided. Although the Plaintiff has established lapses in maintenance, such lapses are not sufficient to justify the complete stoppage of payment, especially when the charges cover essential services like AC services, power backup, security, lighting, and housekeeping.
54.The plaintiff's grievances regarding the delay in execution of the conveyance deed and the alleged encroachments in the atrium could be relevant issues nonetheless they constitute independent causes of action for which the plaintiff has to seek appropriate relief under Specific relief Act or such other legal remedies as may be available. The plaintiff thus without first going for a proper remedy i.e of negotiating with defendant the maintenance charges on account of deficiency in services and non-execution of lease deed stopped paying the maintenance charges. These issues cannot be used as a defence to avoid payment of those maintenance charges, which are admittedly being provided by the defendant.
CS DJ 326/20 Page 33 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
55.The plaintiff has examined PW-3 to argue that a better maintained premises i.e DLF Mall was charging lesser maintenance. PW-3 deposed that Om Infratech Pvt. Ltd. was having its office at DLF Place and the maintenance services were being provided @ Rs.29/- per sq. feet. The witness has relied upon ExPW3/1 to support its contention. It is not stated in the document what all the amount is inclusive of. In any case the plaintiff itself having entered agreement with defendant for paying specified amount of maintenance charges, cannot without at least negotiating with the defendant, claim that since someone else was charging lesser therefore, the defendant has to charge less. Further, the plaintiff has not filed this suit seeking a direction to the defendant to refix the maintenance charges or to cure the deficiencies in the services.
56.Since the Plaintiff was in breach of the contractual terms by failing to clear the outstanding maintenance dues, the Defendant was within its rights to issue the impugned letter calling upon the plaintiff to make necessary payments and warning it of consequences in case of continued default. Such a communication issued in response to prolonged non-payment, cannot be termed illegal or without authority.
57.In view of above, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove as to how letter written by defendant asking for payment of dues can be termed as illegal or non est. CS DJ 326/20 Page 34 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
58.In so far as issue regarding maintenance being not provided as per agreement is concerned, it would be relevant to note that although there is evidence on record to show that property is damaged and is not being maintained in certain aspects; yet the plaintiff has admitted in cross-examination that it has been using all the facilities including electricity, air conditioning, house keeping services, security, power back-up etc. He has not been able to prove that there was any disruption of these services. These services were admitted to be satisfactory by the plaintiff at the time of site visit by Ld. Local Commissioner. It, therefore cannot be said that the defendant is at complete failure in providing services as per the agreement. These deficiencies, however, are not of the nature as would entitle the plaintiff to stop the payment of maintenance charges altogether. It also needs to be noted that the defendant did carry out some improvements on the aspect of beautification also after the filing of suit.
59.This issues are decided accordingly. Issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant. Issue no.3 is considered partly in favour of plaintiff but not entirely.
60.Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is in breach of terms of agreement to sell dt. 07.07.2007? OPD
61.It was claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff vide agreement dt. 07.07.2007 agreed that maintenance provided by the defendant shall be revised every three CS DJ 326/20 Page 35 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
years on 20% basis and that the plaintiff shall be bound to pay the maintenance charges, however, the plaintiff is admittedly not paying the maintenance charges since October, 2024/January, 2025 as admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination. It is stated that plaintiff had stopped paying maintenance much before that. Ld.Counsel for defendant argued that PW-1 has admitted in his cross- examination that it was using the facilities viz electricity, lift etc. and yet is not paying the maintenance and thus the plaintiff is in breach of terms of agreement.
62.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that since defendant itself had not executed sale deed as was agreed in the document, it cannot claim that agreement is not being adhered to by the plaintiff. The defendant is additionally not maintaining the premises properly and hence asking for the maintenance charges for services not being provided is itself in breach of terms.
63.It is stated by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has violated the terms of the Agreement to Sell, in as much as the conveyance deed has not been executed till date despite receipt of the entire sale consideration. It is urged that, having breached the agreement, the defendant cannot insist upon the plaintiff paying the allegedly exorbitant maintenance charges.
64.The issue before this Court is confined to examining whether the maintenance services provided by the CS DJ 326/20 Page 36 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
defendant are adequate. Even assuming that the defendant failed to perform certain obligations under the Agreement to Sell, the appropriate remedy available to the plaintiff was to seek specific performance of the contract or any other relief in accordance with law. The Agreement to Sell does not stipulate that the plaintiff would be entitled to withhold maintenance charges on account of any alleged breach by the defendant in respect of obligations unconnected with the provision of maintenance services. The issue before the court is as to whether the plaintiff is breaching the contract, which as per evidence it is in as much as the maintenance in terms of agreement is not being paid by the plaintiff without first approaching the defendant for getting the condition of maintenance changed or reassessed. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot justify non-payment of maintenance charges on this ground. This issue is therefore, decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
65.Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to continue to provide maintenance/electricity/water services ? OPP And Issue No.5:- Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, it's agent, servant, assigns etc from interfering in peaceful enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff ? OPP CS DJ 326/20 Page 37 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
66.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant is liable to maintain the premises and it is admittedly not paying the maintenance charges. The submission of plaintiff therefore, is that it will not pay the maintenance charges, however, the defendant should continue to maintain the premises. In support of her contention Ld.Counsel mentioned about the judgment in WPC No. 11720/2022 titled Pushp Vihar Commercial Complex Welfare Association Vs. NBCC India Ltd. & Ors. This judgment/order has not been filed by the plaintiff. The order nonetheless finds mention in the other cited order passed by RERA in M/s. Rajeshwari Realty Pvt. Ltd. VS. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Com/28/05/2022 order dt. 19.08.2025, wherein it is recorded that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dt. 31.08.2022 and 14.12.2022 has decided that NBCC/respondents will have to maintain project premises after taking the maintenance charges following the terms and conditions of the contract. The order, therefore, does not say that the plaintiff shall remain entitled for maintenance but the defendant shall not be given maintenance charges. In the judgment passed by RERA it is clearly recorded that since RE (RD) Act 2016 was not in force at relevant time, therefore, the terms of contract between complainant and respondent shall govern the payment of maintenance charges.
67.As per the contract between the parties the maintenance of building was to be arranged by the seller i.e defendant, CS DJ 326/20 Page 38 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
who was entitled to charge lump sum flat charges at Rs.20/- per sq. feet per month at allocable super area which was to be increased by 20% after every three years.
68.Though some of the services as have been noted from the LC's report are faulty viz maintenance of exteriors, aesthetics etc.; essential services viz lifts, power back up, centralized cooling, security, house keeping etc. are being provided uninterruptedly by the defendant. There was agreement to a lump-sum payment on account of maintenance. The plaintiff's asking for a break-up of what amount was to be charged on account of which service shall not be as per agreement. As stated hereinabove the plaintiff had an option of re-negotiating the maintenance charges on account of deficiency in services including non-execution of lease deed which has not been done. It is settled law that a person seeking equity must do equity. The plaintiff thus cannot seek a direction to the defendant for continuing to provide services while it chooses not to pay the dues for such services completely. The plaintiff therefore, is not entitled for the injunctions being sought. These issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
69.The above finding, however, are subject to caveat that the defendant shall be bound by orders, if any, passed by Hon'ble High Court or RERA in respect of the maintenance directions given to the defendant in any proceedings.
CS DJ 326/20 Page 39 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.
70.Issue No.6:- Relief. In view of above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, however, this judgment is subject to the caveat that order if any, passed by Hon'ble High Court/RERA on any of the issues common to the issues in the present suit directing the defendant to provide maintenance services to the plaintiff shall be followed by the defendant irrespective of the findings in this matter. Suit stands disposed off. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Anuradha Shukla) District Judge(Commercial Court)-02 South, Saket, Delhi.
Announced in open court Digitally
on 21.01.2026 signed by
anuradha
(digitally signed and uploaded
on 22.01.2026)
anuradha shukla
shukla Date:
2026.01.22
15:59:22
+0530
CS DJ 326/20 Page 40 of 40 M/s. Om Metals Ratnakar Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.