Bangalore District Court
M/S Xtremedata Technologies Pvt Ltd vs M/S Andhra Graphics on 29 April, 2025
KABC170036042022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84)
Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L.,
LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.No.1865/2022
Dated on this 29th day of April 2025
Plaintiff/s M/S XTREMEDATA TECHNOLOGIES PVT.
LTD.
No.613, 2nd Floor, 1st Main Sector 6,
HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560102.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr K T Sridhar
(By Sri Harish H.V., Advocate)
// versus //
Defendant/s M/S ANDHRA GRAPHICS
Flat No.102, H.No.8-2-248/A/102,
Maharishi House, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad 500034
Rep by its Managing Partner
Mr Kanuri Jagadish Prasad
(By Sri Samanth S.N., Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 16/12/2022
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money
2
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc
KABC170036042022
Date of commencement of : 02/07/2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 29/04/2025
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
02 04 13
JUDGMENT.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, which is a private
limited company, against defendant, which is a partnership
firm, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
accept keys of the Suit Schedule property and take
possession of the same, for recovery of Rs. 1,44,672 along
with interest towards refund of balance security deposit
amount after deducting the amount for arrears of rents, for
recovery of Rs. 13,50,725 towards loss caused to equipment
and accessories in the suit schedule property, for recovery
of Rs. 6,00,000 towards mental harassment and in this suit,
the defendant has raised counterclaim for direction to the
plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property, for recovery of
Rs. 30,67,452 towards arrears of enhanced rent from April
2019 to January 2021 and arrears of monthly rent from
February 2021 to January 2023, recovery of Rs. 39,27,737
3
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc
KABC170036042022
towards interest component on the above arrears at the
rate of 24% per annum, for recovery of Rs. 1,38,812
towards monthly maintenance charges for the months of
July 2021 to January 2023, for recovery of Rs. 79,712
towards electricity charges for July 2021 to January 2023
and for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000 towards mental agony
caused by the plaintiff.
2. The plaint averments in brief are that, the defendant is
the owner of the suit schedule property, being third floor
premises measuring 1586 square feet bearing unit No. T2 of
commercial complex known as "Classic Court" situated at
9 / 1 Richmond Road, Bangalore and the plaintiff had taken
the said premises on lease under lease agreement dated
1.8.2005 by paying security deposit of Rs. 5,50,000. The lease agreement was initially for a period of 11 months and after said period, the plaintiff continued as a tenant holding over and no fresh lease agreement was entered into. By the year 2015 the property developed persistent leaks and as a result of this, from 2015, plaintiff withheld 10% increment on the prevailing rent. In 2018 parties entered into settlement whereby plaintiff paid Rs. 2,02,920 towards 4 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 arrears of increment in rent and the revised monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 97,435, which has been paid by the plaintiff till January 2021. On 11-03-2021 the plaintiff / tenant issued a notice terminating the tenancy with effect from 30.4.2021 and requested the landlord / defendant to deduct three months rent for February to April at the rate of Rs. 97,435 per month i.e., to deduct total sum of Rs. 2,92,305 and refund the balance security deposit amount of Rs. 2,57,695. Defendant replied on 23.3.2021 claiming that after adjusting the arrears payable towards enhancement of rent, plaintiff is only entitled to refund of Rs. 3,374 and the remaining sum of Rs. 5,46,626 shall be adjusted towards rents and arrears of increment of rents. The plaintiff could not vacate the premises on 30.4.2021 due to COVID-19 lockdown. By email dated 28.4.2021 plaintiff informed the defendant that plaintiff will vacate within one week of the lifting of the lockdown. Defendant replied by email dated 30.5.2021 claiming that if plaintiff does not vacate on 31.5.2021, then plaintiff has to issue fresh notice giving three months notice period. On 14.6.2021 COVID-19 lockdown was lifted in the state of Karnataka and on 5 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 17.6.2021 the plaintiff vacated the premises. By email dated 17.6.2021 the plaintiff informed defendant about the vacating of the premises and expressed readiness to hand over the keys. The defendant responded belatedly on 9.8.2021 claiming that the plaintiff has to pay total arrears of rent of Rs. 12,06,579 and only on payment of the same, the keys will be received. This prompted the plaintiff to cause legal notice dated 30.8.2021 which was replied by the defendant who now claimed arrears of rent of Rs. 13,43,160.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has incurred loss of Rs. 13,50,725 towards destruction of computer equipment and other accessories due to the leakage and repairs in the premises. The plaintiff also claims that plaintiff has been put to mental harassment and agony as a result of defendant not taking back the keys when offered by the plaintiff.
4. Thereby, the plaintiff is before the court seeking following reliefs;
6
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 mandatory injunction directing the defendant to accept the keys and take possession of the premises, to direct the defendant to refund balance security deposit amount of Rs. 1,44,672 after deducting the rent at the rate of Rs. 97,435 for the months from 1-2-2021 to 17-6-2021 and after accounting for TDS amount of Rs. 46,933 remitted to government by plaintiff on behalf of the defendant.
For recovery of Rs. 13,50,725 towards damage to computer and accessories due to the negligence of the defendant in failing to carry out repairs to the premises and for recovery of Rs. 6 lakhs towards mental stress and harassment.
5. On issuance of suit summons, defendant has entered appearance through counsel and filed a detailed written statement and also raised counterclaim. The defendant admits that plaintiff was inducted as a tenant into the suit 7 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 schedule premises under the lease agreement dated 1-8- 2005 and defendant also admits receipt of security deposit amount of Rs. 5,50,000 from the plaintiff. However, it is pleaded that, under the lease agreement, it was provided for enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% on the prevailing rent every 22 months and the rent was exclusive of maintenance charges and electricity charges. It is pleaded that this arrangement of enhancement of rent had to be continued even after the original 11-month lease period came to an end. And in case of default in payment of rent, as per the original lease agreement, the plaintiff would be liable to pay interest at 24% on the rental arrears. It is pleaded that even earlier, from the year 2015 to 2018, there was dispute between the parties since plaintiff deliberately withheld enhancement of rent and ultimately there was a settlement between the parties on 9-5-2018 under which the parties agreed to renew the lease till April 2019 and to revise the rent payable to Rs. 97,745 and defendant agreed to receive Rs. 96,624 and Rs. 1,06,296 towards arrears of rent for the period from 2015 to 2018. As per the said arrangement, the lease was to expire on 31-3- 8 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 2019 and a fresh lease was to be executed between the parties and plaintiff continued to default in paying the enhancement of rent on the specious ground that the premises requires repairs. Thereby the defendant contends that the plaintiff is liable to pay the difference amount between the enhanced rent and the last paid rent of Rs. 97,435 for the period from April 2019 to January 2021. From February 2021, admittedly the plaintiff has stopped paying the rent on the ground that plaintiff has issued termination notice. Therefore, as against the claim of the plaintiff that plaintiff is liable to pay the rent only from February 2021 up to 17-6-2021, the defendant contends that since the keys of the premises have not been handed over to the defendant till date of written statement, the plaintiff is liable to pay the entire enhanced rent for the period from February 2021 up to January 2023 when the written statement was filed. In addition, on the said arrears of enhanced rent and rent, the plaintiff is liable to pay interest at 24% per annum as per the contract between the parties. With these pleadings, the defendant not only prays for dismissal of the suit but has also raised the following counterclaims; 9
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 for a direction to the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property, for recovery of sum of Rs. 30,67,452 being the arrears of enhanced rent from April 2019 to January 2021 and the arrears of monthly rent from February 2021 to January 2023, for recovery of Rs. 39,27,737 being the interest payable on the above arrears at the rate of 24% per annum, for recovery of Rs. 1,38,812 towards monthly maintenance charges for the period from July 2021 to January 2023 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from due date till realization, for recovery of sum of Rs. 79,712 towards electricity charges from July 2021 to January 2023 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from due date till realization and 10 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 damages of Rs. 10 lakhs towards mental agony caused by the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff has filed a detailed written statement to the said counterclaim, denying the counterclaims and reiterating the plaint averments.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has vacated the suit schedule property on 17-06-2021 and therefore plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,44,672 towards balance security deposit amount from the defendant i.e. after deducting the rent and TDS payable up to 17-06-2021 from the total security deposit of Rs.
5,50,000?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that as a result of default on the part of the defendant in effecting repairs to 11 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 the ceiling of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff incurred expenses for refurbishing the suit schedule premises and also incurred damage of equipment to the tune of Rs. 13,50,725 and therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from the defendant?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff is entitled to recover damages of Rs. 6,00,000 from the defendant as claimed?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by
limitation?
(5) Whether the defendant proves that
towards arrears of enhanced rent from
April 2019 to January 2021 and arrears
of monthly rent from February 2021 to
January 2023, the defendant is
entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
12
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 30,67,452 from the plaintiff along with accrued interest of Rs. 8,60,285 and thereby the defendant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs. 39,27,737 from the plaintiff?
(6) Whether the defendant further proves that defendant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,38,812 towards maintenance charges from July 2021 to January 2023?
(7) Whether the defendant proves that defendant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 79,712 being electricity charges for the month of July 2021 to January 2023?
(8) Whether the defendant further proves that defendant is entitled to recover damages of Rs. 10,00,000 from the plaintiff as claimed?
13
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs claimed in the plaint?
(10) Whether the defendant is entitled to counterclaims as prayed for?
(11) What order or decree?
8. At the time of framing of the issues itself, this court noted that the plaintiff is seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to accept the keys and take possession of the suit schedule property and defendant is seeking counterclaim for ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. But as per the order sheet, on 8- 6-2023, the possession of the suit schedule property has been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant and therefore relief of mandatory injunction claimed by the plaintiff and the relief of ejectment claimed by the defendant do not survive and therefore no issues are framed with respect to the said reliefs.
9. In the trial, the managing director of the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and got marked, Ex. P1 to P46. In the 14 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 rebuttal evidence, the managing partner of the defendant is examined as DW1 and got marked, Ex. D1 to D14.
10. After closure of evidence of both sides, I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records of the case.
11. My answer to the issues are as follows;
Issue No. 1 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2 and 3 : In the negative.
Issue No. 4 : Does not arise for consideration. Issue No. 5 to 8 : In the negative.
Issue No. 9 : As per finding.
Issue No. 10 : In the negative.
Issue No. 11 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS Issue No. 1 to 10 :-
12. All these issues require common discussion and hence considered together.
15
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022
13. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property, being third floor premises measuring 1586 square feet bearing unit No. T2 of commercial complex known as "Classic Court" situated at 9 / 1 Richmond Road, Bangalore and the plaintiff had taken the said premises on lease under lease agreement dated 1.8.2005 by paying security deposit of Rs. 5,50,000. The lease agreement was initially for a period of 11 months and after said period, the plaintiff continued as a tenant holding over and no fresh lease agreement was entered into. By the year 2015 the property developed persistent leaks and as a result of this, from 2015, plaintiff withheld 10% increment on the prevailing rent. In 2018 parties entered into settlement whereby plaintiff paid Rs. 2,02,920 towards arrears of increment in rent and the revised monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 97,435, which has been paid by the plaintiff till January 2021. On 11-03-2021 the plaintiff / tenant issued a notice terminating the tenancy with effect from 30.4.2021 and requested the landlord / defendant to deduct three months rent for February to April at the rate of Rs. 97,435 per month i.e., to deduct total sum of Rs. 2,92,305 and 16 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 refund the balance security deposit amount of Rs. 2,57,695. Defendant replied on 23.3.2021 claiming that after adjusting the arrears payable towards enhancement of rent, plaintiff is only entitled to refund of Rs. 3,374 and the remaining sum of Rs. 5,46,626 shall be adjusted towards rents and arrears of increment of rents. The plaintiff could not vacate the premises on 30.4.2021 due to COVID-19 lockdown. By email dated 28.4.2021 plaintiff informed the defendant that plaintiff will vacate within one week of the lifting of the lockdown. Defendant replied by email dated 30.5.2021 claiming that if plaintiff does not vacate on 31.5.2021, then plaintiff has to issue fresh notice giving three months notice period. On 14.6.2021 COVID-19 lockdown was lifted in the state of Karnataka and on 17.6.2021 the plaintiff vacated the premises. By email dated 17.6.2021 the plaintiff informed defendant about the vacating of the premises and expressed readiness to hand over the keys. The defendant responded belatedly on 9.8.2021 claiming that the plaintiff has to pay total arrears of rent of Rs. 12,06,579 and only on payment of the same, the keys will be received. This prompted the plaintiff to 17 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 cause legal notice dated 30.8.2021 which was replied by the defendant who now claimed arrears of rent of Rs. 13,43,160.
14. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has incurred loss of Rs. 13,50,725 towards destruction of computer equipment and other accessories due to the leakage and repairs in the premises. The plaintiff also claims that plaintiff has been put to mental harassment and agony as a result of defendant not taking back the keys when offered by the plaintiff.
15. Thereby, the plaintiff is before the court seeking following reliefs;
mandatory injunction directing the defendant to accept the keys and take possession of the premises, to direct the defendant to refund balance security deposit amount of Rs. 1,44,672 after deducting the rent at the rate of Rs. 97,435 for the months from 1-2-2021 to 17-
6-2021 and after accounting for TDS 18 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 amount of Rs. 46,933 remitted to government by plaintiff on behalf of the defendant.
For recovery of Rs. 13,50,725 towards damage to computer and accessories due to the negligence of the defendant in failing to carry out repairs to the premises and for recovery of Rs. 6 lakhs towards mental stress and harassment.
16. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined its managing director as PW1 and got marked, Ex. P1 to P46.
17. Ex. P1 to P3 are printout of emails exchanged between the parties. Ex. P4 is the notice of PIM. Ex. P5 is the non- starter report of PIM. At this stage itself, it is relevant to note that, in fact, the PIM was initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff and not vice versa and it is for this reason that IA No. 2 was filed along with the plaint seeking dispensation of PIM. However, my learned predecessor by orders dated 17-12-2022 on the date of first hearing held that requirement of PIM is already complied 19 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 and hence disposed of IA No. 2. Anyhow, all that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act requires is that, there should be pre-institution mediation before institution of the suit and therefore, whether PIM is initiated by the plaintiff or by the defendant is immaterial and therefore, there is due compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act in the present suit. Ex. P6 are printout of photographs. The first page of Ex. P6 shows the water seepage into the premises and the second page of Ex. P6 are photographs showing the telephone screen after phone calls made by Managing Director of Plaintiff to the personal assistant of DW1. Ex. P7 are details of the image file produced as Ex. P8. Ex. P8 are the photographs of the suit schedule premises taken on 17-06-2021 to show that plaintiff vacated the suit schedule premises on the said date. Ex. P9 are the details of image files and photographs of suit schedule premises taken on 17-06-2021 while the vacating the premises. Ex. P10 are Form 16A (2 numbers) in respect of TDS deducted by the plaintiff towards rents paid to the defendant and these documents are produced because plaintiff is claiming that towards the rent of 20 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 February 2021 up to 17-06-2021 a credit has to be given for the sum of Rs. 46,933 towards the TDS amount. Ex. P11 are screenshots of SBI website showing the cheques issued by the plaintiff in respect of payment of rent up to January 2021. Ex. P12 are emails exchanged between the parties. Ex. P13 is a 65B certificate. Ex. P14 is a letter issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 11-03-2021 terminating the tenancy and stating that the plaintiff will vacate and hand over the premises by the end of April 2021. Ex. P15 is email enclosing the said termination letter to the defendant. Ex. P16 is the reply by defendant dated 23-03-2021 to the said termination letter dated 11-03-2021 stating that after adjusting the arrears towards enhancement of rent the balance amount security deposit to be refunded is only Rs. 3,374. Ex. P17 are again emails exchanged between the parties. Ex. P18 is a letter dated 19-06-2021 by the plaintiff to the defendant stating that the premises has been vacated on 17-06-2021 and expressing willingness to hand over the keys of the premises. Ex. P19 is a letter dated 8- 07-2021 with the enclosures and under the said letter dated 8-07-2021 it is reiterated that the plaintiff vacated the 21 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 premises on 17-06-2021 and ready to hand over the keys. Ex. P20 is the original electricity bill and receipt for having paid the electricity bill for June 2021. Ex. P21 is copy of caveat petition filed by the defendant and received by the plaintiff. Ex. P22 is a printout of email issued by defendant to the plaintiff stating that downstairs people are complaining of water leakage and this email is dated as late as on 6-12-2022. Ex. P-23 is a letter dated 1-1-2009 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff giving instructions for deposit of rent cheques. Ex. P-24 are the bank pay-in slips in respect of deposit of rent by plaintiff into the defendant's bank account. Ex. P-25 are again printout of emails exchanged between the parties. Ex. P-26 is a letter dated 11-5-2018 issued by defendant to the plaintiff offering settlement. Ex. P-27 are again pay-in slips showing deposit of amounts by plaintiff into defendant's account. Ex. P-28 is a letter dated 16-2-2017 issued by the owners association of the building where the schedule premises is situated and this letter is issued to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to remit amount towards installation of junction box. Ex. P- 29 is a receipt issued by the defendant acknowledging 22 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 receipt of total security deposit amount of Rs. 5,50,000. Ex. P-30 is printout of news report regarding imposition of COVID-19 lockdown across the state of Karnataka. Ex. P-31 are orders of state government regarding lockdown. Ex. P- 32 are cash vouchers regarding payment of transportation charges at the time of vacating the premises by the plaintiff. Ex. P-33 is an application to BSNL for shifting the telephone line of the plaintiff from the schedule premises to the newly tenanted premises. It is relevant to note that this application is filed on 30-8-2021 and this was highlighted by the Learned counsel for defendant to contend that the plaintiff was still in occupation of the premises much after 17-6-2021 and this contention is considered infra. Ex. P-34 is an email to shift Airtel landline connection from schedule premises to the new premises of the plaintiff. Ex. P-35 is an Airtel bill which is issued to the new address of the plaintiff. Ex. P-36 is a tax invoice and this is produced to show that the address of the plaintiff in the said tax invoice dated 14- 7-2021 is the new address in HSR Layout. Ex. P-37 is a tax invoice raised by a third party against the plaintiff dated 21- 9-2021 in which the new address of the plaintiff is shown 23 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 and these invoices are produced to show the shifting of the plaintiff's place of business from schedule premises to the newly tenanted premises. Ex. P-38 is the invoice raised by the new landlord against the plaintiff for rent for July 2021 and this is also produced to show that from July 2021 the plaintiff is occupying the newly tenanted premises and therefore shifted from the schedule premises in June 2021 itself. Ex. P-39 is the printout of SBI website to show the payment of rent for July 2021 to the new landlord. Ex. P-40 is the printout of GST website showing the GST returns filed by the plaintiff. Ex. P-41 is the company master data of the plaintiff company. Ex. P-42 is the form No. INC-22 downloaded from the website of Ministry of Company Affairs to show that from 01-07-2021 the address of the company is the new address in HSR Layout. Ex. P-43 are the cash vouchers and bills right from the year 2005 towards refurbishing and renovating the schedule premises. Ex. P-44 are the bills in respect of the electronic equipment and accessories which have been allegedly damaged due to the water seepage in the schedule premises and for which damages are sought in the present suit. Ex. P-45 is a 65B 24 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 certificate in respect of electronic evidence. Ex. P-46 is a board resolution dated 12-12-2022 which is before the filing of the suit authorizing PW1 to represent the Plaintiff company in the present suit.
18. Per contra, the case of the defendant is that, while the defendant admits that plaintiff was inducted as a tenant into the suit schedule premises under the lease agreement dated 1-8-2005 and defendant also admits receipt of security deposit amount of Rs. 5,50,000 from the plaintiff, however, it is pleaded that, under the lease agreement, it was provided for enhancement of rent at the rate of 10% on the prevailing rent every 22 months and the rent was exclusive of maintenance charges and electricity charges. It is pleaded that this arrangement of enhancement of rent had to be continued even after the original 11-month lease period came to an end. And in case of default in payment of rent, as per the original lease agreement, the plaintiff would be liable to pay interest at 24% on the rental arrears. It is pleaded that even earlier, from the year 2015 to 2018, there was dispute between the parties since plaintiff deliberately withheld enhancement of 25 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 rent and ultimately there was a settlement between the parties on 9-5-2018 under which the parties agreed to renew the lease till April 2019 and to revise the rent payable to Rs. 97,745 and defendant agreed to receive Rs. 96,624 and Rs. 1,06,296 towards arrears of rent for the period from 2015 to 2018. As per the said arrangement, the lease was to expire on 31-3-2019 and a fresh lease was to be executed between the parties and plaintiff continued to default in paying the enhancement of rent on the specious ground that the premises requires repairs. Thereby the defendant contends that the plaintiff is liable to pay the difference amount between the enhanced rent and the last paid rent of Rs. 97,435 for the period from April 2019 to January 2021. From February 2021, admittedly the plaintiff has stopped paying the rent on the ground that plaintiff has issued termination notice. Therefore, as against the claim of the plaintiff that plaintiff is liable to pay the rent only from February 2021 up to 17-6-2021, the defendant contends that since the keys of the premises have not been handed over to the defendant till date of written statement, the plaintiff is liable to pay the entire enhanced rent for the 26 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 period from February 2021 up to January 2023 when the written statement was filed. In addition, on the said arrears of enhanced rent and rent, the plaintiff is liable to pay interest at 24% per annum as per the contract between the parties. With these pleadings, the defendant not only prays for dismissal of the suit but has also raised the following counterclaims;
for a direction to the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property, for recovery of sum of Rs. 30,67,452 being the arrears of enhanced rent from April 2019 to January 2021 and the arrears of monthly rent from February 2021 to January 2023, for recovery of Rs. 39,27,737 being the interest payable on the above arrears at the rate of 24% per annum, for recovery of Rs. 1,38,812 towards monthly maintenance charges for the 27 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 period from July 2021 to January 2023 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from due date till realization, for recovery of sum of Rs. 79,712 towards electricity charges from July 2021 to January 2023 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from due date till realization and damages of Rs. 10 lakhs towards mental agony caused by the plaintiff.
19. In support of its case, the defendant has examined its managing partner as DW1 and got marked Ex. D1 to D14.
20. Ex. D1 are printout of emails along with attachments. Ex. D2 are the receipts for payment of electricity bills from September 2021. Ex. D3 are the digital receipts for payment of electricity bills. Ex. D4 are the receipts for payment of maintenance charges from September 2021. Ex. D5 is the legal notice caused by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 3-8-2021 and Ex. D6 is the reply to the same. Ex. D7 is the non-starter report of PIM. Ex. D8 are form No. INC-22 28 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 downloaded from the website of Company Affairs pertaining to the plaintiff showing the address of plaintiff with effect from 01-07-2021 as the new HSR Layout address. Ex. D9 is 65B certificate. Ex. D10 is authorization issued by all the partners of defendant firm in favor of DW1. Ex. D11 is the original lease agreement dated 1-8-2005 between the plaintiff and defendant. Ex. D12 and 13 are printout of emails exchanged between the parties. Ex. D14 is 65B certificate.
21. Having considered the rival contentions of both sides and the oral and documentary evidence on record, at the outset, there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff was inducted as the tenant of the suit schedule property by the defendant / landlord under the lease agreement dated 1-8-2005 which is marked by the defendant as Ex. D11. For the purpose of the present suit, it is not necessary to consider the various frictions and ups and downs in the relationship between the landlord and tenant which took place over the long period of time from 2005 up to 2018. Suffice it to note that as per email at page 11 of Ex. D1, the PW1 issued an email to DW1 in which PW1 29 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 has stated that he has drafted two letters encapsulating the settlement agreement between the parties and requested DW1 to take printout of the same, sign it and send it. One of the said letters drafted by PW1 and which has been signed by DW1 is available at page 12 of Ex. D1 and since it encapsulates the settlement between the parties which is relevant for the purpose of the present suit, the same is extracted below and is as follows;
"M/s. Xtreme Data Technologies Pvt. Ltd. have taken the premises at 3rd floor, Classic Court, 9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560025 with its furniture and fixtures on rental lease for office purpose by an agreement signed with the undersigned on behalf of M/s. Andhra Graphics, the absolute owner of the premises on 1-8-2005. The lease has been renewed over the years until April 2018 by mutual consent of both parties. The current monthly rent payable for the premises by Xtreme Data Technologies is Rs. 97,435.
This renewed lease shall continue until March 31, 2019 at the same monthly rent and shall be taken up for a fresh lease agreement by mutual consent of both parties. We also confirm that all other terms and conditions of the lease dated 1 August 2005 shall hold until fresh agreement in April 2019."30
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 (Emphasis Supplied)
22. This letter is drafted by PW1 and is signed by DW1 and therefore it encapsulates the agreement between the parties. From this letter, it is crystal clear that, the parties agreed that the rent shall be Rs. 97,435 up to 31-3-2019 and thereafter fresh agreement shall be entered into by mutual consent.
23. As per the other letter referred to in the above email which is drafted by PW1 and then signed by DW1 which is at page 14 of Ex. D1, all disputes regarding previous arrears of rent were settled and admittedly in this suit, no arrears of rent earlier to April 2019 is claimed by the defendant.
24. Therefore, at the outset it is to be noted that, it is admitted position of both sides that up to 31-3-2019, the plaintiff has paid the agreed rate of rent as per the above settlement at rate of Rs. 97,435 per month and there is no dispute between the parties that there is no arrears of rent earlier to 31-3-2019. It is further undisputed between the parties that plaintiff has continued 31 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 to pay the same rent at the rate of Rs. 97,435 for the period from April 2019 up to January 2021. This is clear from the table at paragraph 21 of the written statement since the said table shows that, the arrears of rent is claimed only from April 2019.
25. As per the said table, from April 2019 up to January 2021, the arrears of rent claimed is Rs. 9744 per month, which is the 10% enhancement, which according to the defendant, the plaintiff has to pay from April 2019 onwards, that is, 10% over and above the earlier prevailing rent of Rs. 97,435. It is here that chronologically speaking, the first dispute between the parties arises, which is the subject matter of the present suit.
26. According to the plaintiff, as per the above settlement, the parties agreed to enter into a fresh agreement from April 2019 and since no fresh agreement was entered into, the plaintiff continued to pay the earlier rent of Rs. 97,435 up to January 2021. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is that, the above settlement between the parties clearly contemplated that the terms of the lease agreement dated 1-8-2005 shall hold 32 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 good till fresh agreement is entered into and the said the lease agreement of 1-8-2005 admittedly contemplated enhancement of rent by 10% every 22 months and therefore, it is the case of the defendant that from April 2019, 10% enhancement over and above the prevailing rent of Rs. 97,435 was payable, which comes to Rs. 9744 per month and it is on this premise that the defendant in the above table at paragraph 21 of written statement has claimed arrears at the rate of Rs. 9744 per month from April 2019 up to January 2021.
27. Having considered the rival contentions of both sides in this regard, I am of the view that the plaintiff's contention is acceptable for the following reasons. Firstly, it is to be noted that the lease agreement dated 1-8-2005 is an unregistered lease deed and therefore, it cannot have effect beyond 11 months from the date of its execution, and therefore, after 11 months from 1-8-2005, the terms and conditions of the said lease agreement are not legally binding on the parties. In the settlement between the parties encapsulated in the above letter drafted by PW1 and signed by DW1, which is already extracted supra, the words 33 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 used are that "we also confirm that all other terms and conditions of the lease dated 1-8-2005 shall hold until a fresh agreement in April 2019." Therefore, the said settlement between the parties contemplated that the earlier terms and conditions shall hold good only up to April 2019, and from April 2019 onwards, the terms and conditions of the earlier lease would not be applicable and instead, the parties contemplated entering into a fresh agreement. Therefore, from April 2019 onwards, the defendant cannot rely upon the terms and conditions of the earlier lease dated 1-8-2005 to claim enhancement of 10% on the prevailing rent.
28. Secondly and more importantly, it is to be noted that from April 2019 up to January 2021, the defendant has received the rent at the rate of Rs. 97,435 without demur or protest and without putting the plaintiff immediately on notice that the plaintiff is liable to pay 10% enhancement over the prevailing rent. The first communication of the defendant in which the defendant claims said enhancement of 10% is after the plaintiff issued the notice dated 11-03- 2021 (Ex. P. 14) terminating the tenancy and informing the 34 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 defendant that the plaintiff will be vacating by the end of April 2021. It is only in reply to the said notice i.e. in the letter dated 23-03-2021 at Ex. P. 16 that, for the first time, the defendant raised the contention that 10% enhancement on prevailing rent is not paid from April 2019. Therefore, it becomes clear that from April 2019 up to 23-3-2021, the defendant received the rent at the prevailing rate of Rs. 97,435 without demur or protest and never sought enhancement, and therefore, viewed from this angle also, the claim for enhancement of 10% over the prevailing rent is clearly an afterthought and unacceptable.
29. In conclusion, it is to be noted that, when the settlement between the parties clearly contemplated the entering into a fresh lease deed in April 2019 and no such lease deed was entered into, it follows that the plaintiff was justified in paying the rent from April 2019 onwards at the prevailing rate of rent of Rs. 97,435 and the defendant cannot seek any enhancement in respect of the same.
30. From the above letter of the plaintiff at Ex. P14 wherein the plaintiff requested the defendant to adjust the rent from February to April 2021 from the security deposit 35 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 amount, it becomes clear that admittedly rent has not been paid by the plaintiff from February 2021 onwards. This is the reason why in the table at paragraph 21 of the written statement, while claiming arrears of 10% over the prevailing rent up to January 2021, the defendant is claiming the entire rent from February 2021 onwards.
31. Having already held that no enhancement over the prevailing rent was payable, it follows that up to January 2021, the plaintiff has duly paid the rent and from February 2021 up to the date of vacating of the premises, the plaintiff is liable to pay the rent at the prevailing rate of rent of Rs. 97,435 only, since no fresh agreement was entered into between the parties in April 2019 as contemplated under the settlement.
32. The question which now arises is till what date the plaintiff is liable to pay the rent starting from February 2021 onwards. In this regard, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff vacated on 17-6-2021 immediately after lifting of the lockdown. This is not seriously disputed by the defendant because when the suggestion is put to DW1 in his cross-examination at para 36 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 13 of his cross-examination dated 5-2-2025--that plaintiff vacated the schedule premises on 16 / 17 June 2021, DW1 does not deny the suggestion but says that he does not know.
33. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has produced the invoice raised by the new landlord of HSR Layout premises to which plaintiff shifted after vacating the suit schedule premises at Ex. P38, which shows that the invoice for rent effective from 1st July 2021 onwards is raised by the new landlord against the plaintiff for which Rs. 1,67,400 has been duly paid by the plaintiff as per Ex. P39. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiff has paid the rent to the new premises in HSR Layout to which plaintiff has shifted from 1st July 2021 itself, which also corroborates the stand of the plaintiff that plaintiff had vacated suit schedule premises on 17th June 2021 itself.
34. Learned counsel for defendant relied upon applications issued by the plaintiff for shifting of the landline telephone connections of BSNL and Airtel at Ex. P33 and P34, which are dated 30-08-2021 and 29-08-2021 respectively, to contend that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises up to August 2021. This contention cannot 37 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 be accepted in the face of the rental invoice effective from 1st July 2021 for the HSR Layout premises, which is already discussed supra. Just because the telephone connection shifting took some time does not mean that the plaintiff continued to be in possession till August 2021.
35. Apart from this, the plaintiff has also produced the photographs taken on 17th June 2021 to show that the premises was vacated as on that date and plaintiff has also duly intimated the defendant on same day that, the plaintiff has vacated the premises and is ready to hand over the keys of the premises to the defendant, as per the email at page No. 2 of Ex. P18. It is to be noted that after sending the said email dated 17th June 2021, by way of abundant caution, the plaintiff has also issued a letter after two days, i.e., dated 19th June 2021, reiterating that the premises was vacated on 17th June 2021, and the said letter is sent by courier, and the said courier receipt is also one of the documents marked as Ex. P18.
36. Apart from this, Ex. P42 is a Form No. INC-22 downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs which shows that the registered office of plaintiff 38 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 company is changed to the new HSR Layout premises with effect from 01st July 2021. In the face of all this material, I have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff vacated the suit schedule premises on 17th June 2021.
37. However, the contention of the learned counsel for defendant in claiming rent even after the said date and up to the date on which the keys were handed over in open court as per the order sheet dated 8th June 2023 is slightly different. Counsel for defendant argued that even considering that plaintiff vacated the premises on 17th June 2021, the liability of the plaintiff to pay the rent for the premises would continue until plaintiff handed over the vacant possession and the keys of the premises to the landlord. He argued that admittedly the keys were handed over to the landlord/defendant in open court on 8th June 2023 and therefore he submitted that the plaintiff is liable to pay the rent from February 2021 up to June 2023.
38. With regard to the position of law as to when the liability to pay the rent by the tenant comes to an end, both sides have relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble 39 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 Delhi High Court in the case of H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, reported in 2015 DHC 4291. At paragraph 10 of the said ruling, the principles of law are summarized and the relevant principles of law applicable to the case on hand are at paragraph 10.5 to 10.8 which are as follows:
10.5. Landlord cannot refuse to take over possession upon determination of the lease and offer of possession by the tenant. The landlord upon determination of lease and offer of possession by the tenant cannot refuse to take over the possession on the ground that property has been damaged or not restored to its original condition.
10.6. Consequences of the landlord refusing to take the possession offered by the tenant. In the event of refusal of the landlord to take possession offered by the tenant, the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord and the tenant shall not be liable to pay the rent thereafter.
10.7. Consequences of the tenant refusing to hand over the possession. If the landlord is ready to accept the possession but the tenant refuses, or fails to hand over the possession, the liability of the tenant to pay the rent shall continue till the handing over of the possession.40
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 10.8. Remedy of tenant in case of non-refund of security deposit by the landlord. The tenant cannot refuse to hand over the possession until the security deposit is refunded. In the event of non-refund of the security deposit by the landlord, the remedy of the tenant is to sue the landlord for refund of security deposit after handing over the possession.
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. It is in the light of the above principles of law that in the present case it has to be determined as to when the liability of the plaintiff / tenant to pay the rent came to an end i.e. whether on 17.06.2021 as contended by the plaintiff or on 08.06.2023 as contended by the defendant.
40. In this regard, at the outset, the court has to decide whether the tenancy was rightfully terminated by the tenant by way of the letter dated 11.03.2021 at Ex. P14. As per the said letter at Ex. P14, the tenancy is terminated with effect from the end of April 2021. That is by giving one month notice. As against this, the contention of the defendant is that the lease agreement dated 01-08-2005 contemplated three months notice for termination and 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 therefore there is no valid termination of the tenancy. This contention cannot be accepted because as already noted supra, the said lease deed is unregistered lease deed and will not have effect beyond 11 months. And therefore, when the lease deed is of the year 2005, its terms and conditions would not have effect in the year 2021. And therefore, in the year 2021, the status of the plaintiff was that of a tenant holding over, who could terminate the tenancy with 15 days notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, I hold that the tenancy has been rightfully terminated by the plaintiff by issuing the letter at Ex. P14.
41. I have already held supra that, there is no dispute that plaintiff actually vacated the premises on 17.06.2021 immediately after lifting of the lockdown in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, the next question which has to be decided is whether after vacating the premises on 17.06.2021, the plaintiff offered to hand over the possession and keys to the landlord. In this regard as per the letter at Ex. P18 dated 19-06-2021 and enclosed email dated 17.06.2021, the plaintiff has clearly stated readiness 42 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the defendant. Although the plaintiff intimated the same on 17.06.2021 by email and 19.06.2021 by letter sent by courier and again issued reminder in respect of the same by letter dated 8.07.2021 at Ex. P19, the response of the defendant to all these communications of the plaintiff expressing willingness to hand over the possession was belatedly sent on 9-8-2021, which is produced at Ex. P3. In the said email communication, the defendant has written as follows at paragraph 3:
"Therefore, I kindly request you to pay an amount of Rs. 7,12,579 towards rental arrears and enhanced lease amount along with interest for the period 1-4-2019 to 31-8-2021. The copy of statement of amounts is enclosed herewith for sake of brevity and clarity. After receiving the said amounts from you towards the arrears of lease, I will take peaceful possession of the property in as it is condition without any damages and losses of the lease premises. Further, at the time of leasing the premises, I have also provided furniture and fixtures as listed in Schedule B of lease agreement dated 1- 8-2005 and the same has to be handed over in good condition."
(Emphasis Supplied) 43 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022
42. Therefore, from this communication made by the defendant in response to the communication of the plaintiff seeking to hand over vacant possession, it is clear that when plaintiff, after having vacated the premises on 17-6- 2021, immediately intimated the defendant that the plaintiff-tenant is willing to hand over the possession of the property to the landlord, the defendant put conditions for taking possession and stated that only after receiving Rs. 7.12 lakhs towards arrears, the defendant is prepared to take the possession of the premises.
43. Therefore, as per the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, extracted supra, in the event of refusal of landlord to take possession offered by the tenant, the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord and the tenant shall not be liable to pay rent thereafter. The said principles of law are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, since it is clear that plaintiff vacated the premises on 17-6-2021 and immediately offered to hand over the possession to the landlord, but it was the landlord-defendant who refused to 44 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 take the possession by putting conditions for taking possession. Therefore, I hold that the liability of the plaintiff to pay rent came to an end on 17-6-2021.
44. In order to get over this, the learned counsel for defendant vehemently argued that although that may have been the stand of the defendant, in the email communication at Ex. P3, later on the defendant issued a reply to the legal notice of the plaintiff and in the reply dated 28-9-2021, at Ex. D. 6, at paragraph 25c, the defendant called upon the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the leased premises to the defendant. It was argued that in response to the said demand in the reply, the plaintiff has not handed over the possession and therefore the plaintiff is liable to pay the rent till the date the possession was handed over in open court.
45. This contention cannot be accepted because once the tenant offered to hand over the possession on 17-6-2021 and the same was refused by the defendant-landlord as per email at Ex. P3 dated 9-8-2021, the liability of the tenant to pay the rent came to an end. Said liability cannot be revived 45 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 by a subsequent reply issued by the defendant calling upon the tenant to hand over the possession.
46. Therefore, I conclude that the plaintiff is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 97,435 from 1-2-2021 up to 17-6- 2021. The rent for the full months of February, March, April and May comes to Rs. 97,435 × 4 + Rs. 3,89,740. For June, for a period of 17 days, in my view, two-thirds of the monthly rent is payable and two-thirds of Rs. 97,435 is Rs. 64,956. Therefore, the total rent payable by the plaintiff for the period from 1-2-2021 up to 17-6-2021 is Rs. 4,54,696.
47. The plaintiff claims that from this amount, TDS of Rs. 46,933 which has been remitted by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant to the department has to be deducted and in this regard the plaintiff relies upon the Form 16A TDS certificates at Ex. P10. However, in my view, when rent itself has not been paid admittedly, the question of deducting TDS for the said months does not arise and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to deduct the said sum of Rs. 46,933 towards TDS.
48. Therefore, the liability of the plaintiff for payment of rent is Rs. 4,54,696. Admittedly, the defendant has in its 46 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 hands security deposit of Rs. 5,50,000. After deducting the above arrears of rent of Rs. 4,54,696 from the security deposit of Rs. 5,50,000, it is the defendant who is liable to refund the balance amount of Rs. 95,304 to the plaintiff.
49. In the light of the above conclusion, let me consider each prayer of the plaintiff and each of the counterclaims and give my findings thereon.
50. The first prayer in the Plaint is for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to accept the keys of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, this relief has become infructuous since, as per the order sheet dated 8-6-2023, the keys of the premises have been handed over by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant in open court.
51. The second prayer in the Plaint is for recovery of Rs. 1,44,672, being the balance security deposit amount. In view of my above discussion, I hold that it is the sum of Rs. 4,54,696 that has to be deducted from the security deposit amount, and therefore, towards this prayer, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 95,304. Insofar as the interest on this amount is concerned, on the pre-suit interest component, 47 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 no court fee has been paid, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to interest only from the date of the suit onwards. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the suit involves a commercial dispute, I am of the view that the proper rate of interest to be awarded is 9% per annum on the said sum of Rs. 95,304, from the date of the suit till the date of realization.
52. The third relief claimed in the Plaint is for damages of Rs. 13,50,725 towards the damage sustained to the computer equipment and accessories. This amount is quantified in the table at paragraph 18 of the Plaint, which includes expenses for refurbishing the schedule premises, destruction of computer equipment, UPS equipment, AC unit, repairs of computer equipment, UPS equipment, and air conditioning unit. This claim is sought on the premise that there was water seepage from the roof of the schedule premises, which was not repaired by the defendant / landlord, resulting in the destruction and damage to the equipment of the plaintiff in the schedule premises, and hence, towards the same, the said relief is claimed. It is to be noted that, it was the lookout of the plaintiff / tenant to 48 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 take proper care of electrical equipment and accessories, and the plaintiff cannot blame the landlord for the same. If there really was such serious water seepage, nothing prevented the plaintiff from getting it repaired and deducting the repair costs from the rent payable after due intimation to the landlord, under Section 108 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act. Such being the case, the plaintiff / tenant cannot blame the landlord for any damages or repairs to the electrical equipment kept in the suit schedule premises. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs. 13,50,725.
53. The last and final relief sought by the plaintiff is for recovery of Rs. 6,00,000 towards mental stress and harassment. The plaintiff is a private limited company, and therefore, the question of the plaintiff suffering any mental stress or harassment does not arise. Even otherwise, it is a commercial transaction between the parties, and the defendant has taken the stand to protect its interests, and therefore, merely by taking up the stand as noted supra, it cannot be said that the defendant has deliberately caused any mental stress or harassment to the plaintiff. Therefore, 49 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of Rs. 6,00,000 under the head of mental stress and harassment.
54. Accordingly, I hold that the only relief that can be granted to the plaintiff in the present suit is in respect of the second prayer for recovery of Rs. 95,304 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization.
55. Now, let me consider which reliefs, if any, sought in the counterclaim can be decreed.
56. The first relief sought in the counterclaim is for ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit schedule premises. This relief has become infructuous for the reason already noted supra that, admittedly, the plaintiff has handed over the possession and keys of the premises to the defendant in open court, as per the order sheet dated 8-6-2023.
57. The second and third reliefs claimed in the counterclaim are for recovery of Rs. 30,67,452 and Rs. 39,27,737 towards arrears of rent and arrears of enhancement of rent, along with interest. In view of the detailed discussion made above, I have already held that all 50 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 that the plaintiff is liable to pay towards rent is the sum of Rs. 4,54,696, which is to be adjusted from the security deposit amount of Rs. 5,50,000 and consequently, it is the defendant who is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 95,304 to the plaintiff. Therefore, these two reliefs are liable to be rejected.
58. The fourth and fifth reliefs claimed in the counterclaim are for recovery of Rs. 1,38,812 towards the electricity bill and Rs. 79,712 towards monthly maintenance. It is relevant to note that the period for which the above sums are claimed is from July 2021 to January 2023. I have already held supra that the plaintiff vacated the premises on 17 th June 2021 itself and offered to hand over the vacant possession on said date itself. Such being the case, when the liability of the plaintiff to pay rent came to an end on 17- 6-2021, the question of the defendant holding the plaintiff responsible for paying electricity charges and monthly maintenance from July 2021 onwards does not arise, and therefore these two reliefs are liable to be rejected.
59. The last relief claimed in the counterclaim is for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000 towards mental agony, financial 51 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 loss in terms of loss of profit, loss of future rent, loss of business opportunity, etc., and for use and occupation of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff holding over. For the same reasons for which I have denied the relief of Rs. 6,00,000 towards mental stress and harassment claimed by the plaintiff, this claim of Rs. 10,00,000 also has to be rejected. This is a commercial transaction between the parties, and the parties have taken up stands to protect their respective interests, and the same cannot be construed as causing mental agony to the opposite side. The heads of financial loss in terms of loss of profit, loss of future rent, loss of business opportunity, and for use and occupation of the suit schedule property cannot be accepted because I have already held supra that up to 17-6- 2021, when the plaintiff was in possession, the arrears of rent come to only Rs. 4,54,696, which is fully adjusted from the security deposit itself, and in fact, the balance amount is payable by the defendant. Such being the case, this relief for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000 is also liable to be rejected.
60. In accordance with my above findings, I answer issues No. 1 to 3, 5 to 10.
52
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022
61. Insofar as issue No. 4 is concerned, the issue of limitation is framed with respect to the relief claimed at prayer column C for recovery of damages for loss and repair of equipment and accessories, since, according to the plaint averments, the seepage of rainwater into the premises started in the year 2015, and since then, the damage and repair have been sustained to the computer equipment and accessories. However, when on merits, this relief is denied, it follows that this issue regarding limitation framed in respect of the said relief is not necessary to be answered. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 4 as does not arise for consideration.
62. Before parting, the rulings relied upon by the Learned Counsel for Defendant may be considered. Counsel for the Defendant has laid upon the following citations:
Haji Muhammad Ishaik vs. Muhammad Iqbal reported in AIR 1978 SC 798; Bijay Kumar vs. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai reported in 2024 INSC 445; 53
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 HS Bedi vs. National Authority of India reported in 2015 DHC 4291;
C. Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons vs.
Deepali Company reported in
Manu/KA/2077/2021.
63. The first of the above citations is with regard to implied contract borne out by the conduct of the parties and lays down that contracts may be either expressed or implied, and an implied contract can be inferred from the correspondence between the parties. It is on the basis of the correspondence between the parties that I have already held supra that there was an understanding between the parties that the rent would be Rs. 97,435 per month up to 31-3-2019, and from April 2019, the parties would enter into a fresh agreement. Since a fresh agreement has not been entered into, I have already held that the rent payable by the plaintiff from April 2019 onwards continued to be the prevailing rent of Rs. 97,435. Therefore, the principle of law laid down in this ruling has already been applied by me 54 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 supra, and therefore it will not take the Defendant's case any further.
64. The second ruling is on the proposition laid down at paragraph 19 of the said judgment that a tenant who once entered the property in question lawfully, and continues in possession after his right to do so stands extinguished, is liable to compensate the landlord for such time period after the right of occupancy expires. I have already held supra that, on facts, the plaintiff vacated the premises on 17-6- 2021 and immediately offered to hand over the possession to the defendant, and it was the defendant / landlord who refused to take the possession. Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay rent after 17-6-2021. In light of this fact situation prevailing in the present case, the above principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
65. The third citation in the H.S. Bedi case has already been discussed by me supra and need not be repeated here.
66. The last citation relied upon is the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for the proposition of law that a 55 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 representative of the company has to be duly authorized by the board of directors. In this regard, it is to be noted that, at the fag end of the trial, PW1 has been recalled and got marked Ex. P46, which is the board resolution passed by the board of directors of the plaintiff company dated 12-12- 2022, authorizing PW1 to represent the plaintiff company in the present suit. In the further cross-examination of PW1, after marking of this document, it has been suggested to PW1 that the said board resolution was in his custody since December 2022. By putting this suggestion, the defendant admits that the said board resolution was passed in favor of PW1 by the plaintiff company prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, it follows that the PW1 who has signed the plaint in the present suit and deposed on behalf of the plaintiff is duly authorized. Therefore, the condition laid down in the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that the representative of a company should be duly authorized by the board of directors is satisfied in the present case and therefore, the said ruling will not help the defendant in the present suit.
56
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022
67. Before concluding, it may be noted that, in the present case both sides have come to the court with inflated claims, and out of the total suit claim, it is only a sum of Rs. 95,304 which has been decreed, and the counterclaims have been dismissed in toto. Therefore, in the fact situation of the present suit, I am of the view that both parties should be directed to bear their respective costs.
Issue No. 11:
68. Having answered issues No. 1 to 10 as above, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER.
The suit is partly decreed.
It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs 95,304/= along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of suit till date of realization from the defendant in respect of prayer column (b) of the plaint.
All other reliefs sought for in the suit by the plaintiff are dismissed.57
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 The counter-claims raised by the defendant are dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
Office to issue soft copy of this
judgment to both sides, by email, if
furnished.
[Dictated using MacWhisper Pro 10.8.1, transcript revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of April, 2025] SUDINDRA Digitally signed by SUDINDRA NATH S NATH S Date: 2025.05.02 15:27:17 +0530 (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
PW1 : Sri. K.T. Sridhar
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
Defendant/s:
DW1 Sri. Kanuri Jagadish Prasad
58
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022
3. List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 : Print out of E-mail
Ex.P2 : Print out of E-mail
Ex.P3 : Print out of Email along with attachment
Ex.P4 : Original notice of PIM
Ex.P5 : Non starter report of PIM
Ex.P6 : Print out of photographs
Ex.P7 : Screen short of mobile phone
Ex.P8 : Photographs
Ex.P9 : Screen short of mobile phone along with
photographs and pen drive
Ex.P10 : Digital copies of TDS
Ex.P11 : Print out of E-mails
Ex.P12 : Print out of E-mails
Ex.P13 : 65B Certificate
Ex.P14 : Office copy of letter dated.11.03.2021 along with courier receipt for dispatch of the same Ex.P15 : Print out of email with attachment Ex.P16 : Reply dated.23.03.2021 issued by defendant along with postal envelope Ex.P17 : Print out of emails Ex.P18 : Office copy of letter dated. 19.06.2021 with 2 enclosures and courier receipt Ex.P19 : Office copy of letter dated. 08.07.2021 with 5 enclosures and speed post receipt and acknowledgment and tracking consignment 59 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 Ex.P20 : Electricity bill of Rs.3658 with due date on 16.06.2021 with digital receipt for payment Ex.P21 : Copy of caveat petition received by plaintiff from advocate for defendant along with postal Ex.P22 : Print out of email Ex.P23 : Letter dated.01.01.2009 received by plaintiff through courier along with envelope Ex.P24 : Bank pay in slips/challans for having deposited rent into bank account of defendant in Andhra Bank Ex.P25 : Print out of emails Ex.P26 : Letter dated.11.05.2018 received by plaintiff from defendant Ex.P27 : 3 Numbers Bank pay in slips/challans for having deposited rent increment into bank account of defendant in Andra Bank Ex.P28 : Letter dated.16.02.2017 received by the plaintiff Ex.P29 : Original receipt issued by defendant Ex.P30 : Print out of News report Ex.P31 : Government of Karnataka orders regarding Covid-
19 Ex.P32 : Original Cash vouchers Ex.P33 : Application to BSNL with seal of BSNL for having received the same Ex.P34 : Print out of email Ex.P35 : Digital Airtel Bill Ex.P36 : Tax invoice dated 14.07.2021 Ex.P37 : GST invoice Ex.P38 : Print out of emails with attachment Ex.P39 : Digital receipt for having made NEFT payments Ex.P40 : GST website details downloaded from the website 60 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1865-2022_Judgment.doc KABC170036042022 Ex.P41 : Details downloaded from ministry of company affairs website Ex.P42 : Form No.INC22 downloaded from registrar of company website Ex.P43 : Cash vouchers and bills in respect of expenditure incurred for refurbishing then premises Ex.P44 : Tax invoice and bills regarding electronic equipment Ex.P45 : 65B certificate Ex.P46 : Attested copy of Board Resolution.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of Defendant/s:
Ex.D1 Print out of Email along with attachment Ex.D2 Receipts of payment of electricity bills Ex.D3 Digital receipts in respect of online payment of electricity charges Ex.D4 Receipt of payment of maintenance charges Ex.D5 Legal notice dated.30.08.2021 Ex.D6 Reply to legal notice with RPAD receipts Ex.D7 Non starter report of PIM Ex.D8 Print out of website of registrar of companies Ex.D9 65B certificate Ex.D10 Authorization letter Ex.D11 Original lease agreement dated 01.08.2005 Ex.D12 Printout of e-mail with attachment Ex.D13 Printout of e-mail with attachments Ex.D14 65B Certificate (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ACC & SJ, (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU