Delhi District Court
Vimal Kochhar vs M/S. Kusum Enterprises on 15 December, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI :ADJ07: CENTRAL:
ROOM NO: 32: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
ID NO: 02401C0235462007
CS NO: 191/09
IN THE MATTER OF
VIMAL KOCHHAR
S/o LATE SHRI HANS RAJ KOCHHAR
R/o C254, MAYAPURI, PHASEII,
NEW DELHI64
SOLE PROP.
M/s. DD KOCHHAR & SONS,
C254, MAYAPURI, PHASEII,
NEW DELHI64 ............................. (PLAINTIFF)
VS.
1. M/s. KUSUM ENTERPRISES
A194, INDERPURI, NEW DELHI12
THROUGH ITS PARTNER
SHRI SHREYANS JHUNJHUN WALA
A194, INDERPURI, NEW DELHI12
2. SHRI SHREYANS JHUNJHUN WALA
S/o SHRI S.P. JHUNJHUN WALA,
SOLE PROP, OF M/s. GURU CONTAINERS,
A194, INDERPURI, NEW DELHI12
3. SHRI SHREYANS JHUNJHUN WALA
S/o SHRI S.P. JHUNJHUN WALA,
A194, INDERPURI, NEW DELHI12 ......................... (DEFENDANTs)
contd................(g)
2
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION ARREARS OF RENT AND
MESNE PROFITS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.03.2007
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 15.12.2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 15.12.2010
JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed by plaintiff against defendant tenant for recovery of possession of tenanted premises i.e. Ground Floor of C254, Mayapuri, PhaseII, New Delhi, admeasuring 3800 sft. shown in red in site plan, recovery of Rs. 2,81,400/ as arrear of rent as on 28.02.07 apart from interest is also sought. Mesne profit @ Rs. 6,000/ per day we.f. 01.03.07 till actual vacation with interest @ 18% p.a.
2. Short pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he is proprietor of the firm M/s. D.D. Kochhar & Sons. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm which was represented by its partner Sh. Shreyans Jhunjhun Wala. Defendant No.2 is Sh. Shreyans Jhunjhunwala himself as sole proprietor of M/s. Guru Containers while Defendant No.3 is again Sh. Shreyans Jhunjhunwala in person. Plaintiff who is owner of property no. C254, PhaseII, Maya Puri, New Delhi admeasuring 3800 sfts. gave ground floor of the property on contd................(g) 3 lease to the defendants without roof rights under three separate lease deeds. Two lease deeds qua defendant no.1 and 2 dated 28.08.06 were duly registered and were signed by defendant no. 3 in his capacity of being partner of defendant no.1 and proprietor of defendant no. 2.
3. Third lease deed dated 01.09.06 executed between plaintiff and defendant no. 3 in his individual capacity was a notarised one. The cumulative lease money under the three deeds was Rs. 60,000/ per month excluding water and electricity charges. The term of all the three lease deeds was two years w.e.f. 01.07.06. Security deposit of Rs. 3 lac was made. Out of this Rs. 3 lac, Rs. 2 lac was security in the lease deed executed between plaintiff and defendant no.1 and Rs. 1 lac was security in the lease deed executed between plaintiff and defendant no. 2.
4. The electricity bills were supposed to be paid by defendant but plaintiff was to pay as per sub meter reading for usage on the first floor of the property. However defendant did not pay the agreed rent amount as per lease deeds as out of Rs. 60,000/ per month only Rs. 40,000/ per month was paid for the month of July, August & September 2006 leaving a balance of Rs.
contd................(g) 4 60,000/ as unpaid amount. For the months of Dec 06, Jan and Feb '07 no rent was paid leading to balance of Rs. 1.80 lacs apart from above Rs. 60,000/.
5. Finally vide notice dated 08.01.07 the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendants w.e.f. 28.02.07. and called upon for paying the arrears of rent within 15 days of receipt of notice apart from vacating and handing over the physical possession after 28.02.07. Despite service of the notice it was neither replied nor complied. Defendants refused to vacate the premises and continued to occupy the premises beyond 01.03.07 making them liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/ per day as per terms of the lease. As such defendants owed plaintiff Rs. 2.40 lacs as arrears as on 28.02.07 apart from interest of RS. 9,200 @ 18% p.a.
6. In this backdrop defendant filed a permanent injunction suit against the plaintiff in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge with a false plea that agreed monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 40,000/ and not Rs. 60,000/. He mentioned only about the first two lease deeds . He falsely claimed apprehension of forcible dispossession.
contd................(g) 5
7. In a letter dated 07.12.06 addressed to plaintiff, father of defendant Sh. Som Prakash wrongly claimed himself to be proprietor of defendant no. 2 . In this backdrop the suit in hand was filed for recovery of Rs. 2,81,400/ apart from damage of Rs. 30,000/ @ Rs.6,000/ per day alongwith interest 18% for the 5 days of month of March 2007 before filing of this suit on 06.03.07.
8. Notice of this suit was served upon the defendants who filed a common WS. They prayed for dismissal of this suit claiming it to be a counter blast to their Civil Injunction Suit. It is claimed that plaintiff suppressed material facts in so far as rent upto Feb'07 stood paid to them while rent qua the subsequent period were sent through cheques by courier dated 14.03.07 and 06.04.07 but plaintiff refused to accept the cheques . Demand draft dated 08.05.07 of Rs. 89,489 was also sent apart from legal notice dated 02.05.07. It is pleaded that refusal of plaintiff to receive the cheque was intentional. It is also pleaded that the third lease deed was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
contd................(g) 6
9. On merits defendant did not deny that plaintiff is sole owner of the property. It is admitted that defendant no.3 is partner of defendant no.1 and proprietor of defendant no.2. Execution of two registered lease deeds with rent of Rs. 20,000/ per month each is admitted while execution of three lease deeds executed between plaintiff and defendant no. 3 for additional Rs. 20,000/ per month was also not denied. It is also not denied that the monthly rental charges for 3800/ sqr. fts was Rs. 60,000/. Deposit of Rs. 3 lacs as security amount is also not denied under two registered lease deeds. Even the claim of plaintiff of Rs. 2.40 lacs as arrears of unpaid rent has also not been specifically denied. Receipt of demand notice dated 08.01.07 is also not denied and rather it is claimed that it is not valid in the eyes of law.
10. Defendants claim that plaintiff is not entitled to any mense profit as they are in legal possession of the property. With these pleas they have prayed for dismissal of the suit in hand.
11.Separate replication to this WS was filed wherein plaintiff reiterated his pleaded case and denied the averments of the defendant.
contd................(g) 7
12.Upon completion of pleadings following issues were identified by LD. Predecessor on 29.11.07.
ISSUES
1. Whether the rent of the premises was Rs.
60,000/ per month or whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,81,400/ as balance of arrears of rent from 01.07.06 to 28.02.07? (OPP)
2. Whether the tenancy of the defendant was duly terminated by the plaintiff. If so, its effect ? (OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of ground floor of premises bearing No. C254, Maya Puri, PhaseII, New Delhi? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to use and occupation charges at the rate of 6,000/ per day or any other amount w.e.f. 01.03.07? (OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff has filed the present suit after concealing material facts? If so, its effect? (OPD)
6. Relief.
contd................(g) 8
13. Plaintiff had moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC which was decided on 03.09.08 in plaintiff's favour for passing of a decree of possession of entire suit property in his favour against the defendants.
14.On an application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC of plaintiff Ld. Predecessor passed an order vide order 29.11.07 directed defendants to pay Rs. 40,000/ per month w.e.f 01.03.07 and this amount was paid by the defendant from 01.03.07 to August 2008 or actual physical possession of the property was handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff on 13.09.09 in an execution filed by the plaintiff. During the course of admission denial of documents the third lease deed executed between plaintiff and defendant no.3 was impounded by LD. Predecessor for it being not registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act even though it was for a period of two years. Plaintiff paid double the leviable penalty and plaintiff was thereafter allowed to exhibit it in evidence.
15.To prove his case plaintiff examined himself as PW1 on the contrary defendant no.3 examined himself as DW1.
16. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff Sh. R.S. Mahla and contd................(g) 9 LD. Counsel for defendant Sh. M.S. Rohilla and have also perused the case file.
17. To prove his case plaintiff deposed on the lines of his plaint vide affidavit Ex. PW 1/A. He has proved photocopies on record in which he has proved two lease deeds as Ex. PW 1/1 to Ex. PW1/2 , Third lease deed as Ex. PW 1/3, Site Plan as Ex. PW 1 / 4, Notarised deed dated 01.09.06 as Ex. PW 1/5, Letters written to Defendant no.1 and 2 are Ex. PW 1/6 & 7 respectively, Copy of Legal Notice as Ex. PW 1/8, Postal Receipt as Ex. PW 1/9, U.P.C. as Ex. PW 1/10, legal notice as Ex. PW 1/11, Income Tax Return/Balance Sheet as Ex. PW 1/12 & Ex. PW 1/13 respectively & Three Vouchers as Ex. PW 1/14 to Ex. PW 1/15 (Colly). In his cross examination plaintiff deposed that he is in business of Imported China Footwear apart from having income from rent of the property built up on a plot C254, Maya Puri admeasuring 600 sqr yards and portion of the ground floor of the property is under tenancy of M/s. Kapil Corpals Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff concedes to have written two letters on 10.11.06 in which there is no mention of Rs. 20,000/ per month qua the month of July , August and September 2006. He did not receive the cheque of Rs. 40,000/ dated contd................(g) 10 07.12.06.
18.In support of their defence defendant no. 3 appeared as DW1. Vide his affidavit Ex. DW1/1 he deposed on the lines of their common WS. He has proved on record letter dated 14.03.07 & 06.04.07 as Ex. DW 1/A & B, cheques sent alongwith the letters for payment of rent as Ex. DW 1/C & D, registry receipts dated 15.03.07 as Ex. DW 1/E, Envelop which was returned as Ex. DW 1/F, Courier Receipt dated 07.04.07 as Ex. DW 1/G, Returned Cover Envelop as Ex. DW 1/H, Legal Notice dated 08.05.07 as Ex. DW 1/I, Courier Receipts dated 08.05.07 as Ex. DW1/J, Demand Draft dated 08.05.07 as Ex. DW 1/K, Letter dated 07.05.07 as Ex. DW 1/L, Courier Receipt as Ex. DW 1/M, Legal notice dated 02.05.07 as Ex. DW 1/N, Courier Receipt as Ex. DW 1/O, Copy of Electricity Bills as Ex. DW 1/P, Challan Receipt of the payment of the rent from 01.03.07 to 01.10.08 as Ex. DW 1/Q (Colly) & Copy of T.D.S. Certificate of Form No. 16A as Ex. DW 1/R (Colly).
19. In his detailed cross examination he deposed that at the time of taking the property on rent he was sole proprietor of defendant no.2 and partner of contd................(g) 11 defendant no.1 and that he registered two lease deeds. He denied the execution of the third lease deed he however qualified his this plea by conceding that he had actually signed the third deed as well but it was got prepared by the plaintiff for his own benefit. He denied that the monthly rent was Rs. 60,000/. He accepted the property dealer who got this lease for him was Sh. Aman Arora who was witness in all these lease deeds Ex. PW 1/1 to Ex. PW 1/3 ( Ex. PW 1/5) . He denied that he was not regular in paying rents. He denied that Rs. 20,000/ per month was not paid qua the month of July, August& September 2007. In clear contradiction to para 8 & 17 where plaintiff has demanded unpaid rent of Rs. 20,000/ per month for the month of July, August and September 2006 i.e. Rs. 60,000/, it is suggested to defendant no. 3 by the plaintiff that this unpaid amount of Rs. 20,000 for the three months already stands paid by the defendants to the plaintiff by cheque. Plaintiff further concedes that rent for October 2006 was also received by cheque. It is denied that the plaintiff terminated the tenancy or that defendants violated the terms of the lease deeds or that they are supposed to pay Rs. 6000/ per day damages.
20. Now I shall dispose off individual issues framed by LD. Predecessor.
contd................(g) 12
21. Issue No. 3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of ground floor of premises bearing No. C254, Maya Puri, PhaseII, New Delhi? (OPP)
22. It has become infructuous in so far as in possession of entire property was admittedly handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff on 13.09.2009 under the judicial orders during the course of trial.
23. Issue no. 5:
Whether the plaintiff has filed the present suit after concealing material facts? If so, its effect? (OPD)
24. As far as this plea is concerned LD. Counsel for defendant has not pointed out any specific material fact which can lead to vitiating the plaint. It is argued that the suit in hand is counter blast of injunction suit filed by defendants tenant against the plaintiff apprehending forcible dispossession. In my considered view filing of a suit seeking eviction of tenant and mense profit cannot be termed to be a counter blast. Rather it is compliance of a legal process which signifies that plaintiff is desirous of contd................(g) 13 approaching courts of law for seeking the relief of possession of his property instead of forcible dispossession. This issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
25. Issue no. 2 :
Whether the tenancy of the defendant was duly terminated by the plaintiff. If so, its effect ? (OPP)
26. It is admitted case of the parties that the premises in question was taken by defendants on rent from the plaintiff . Two registered lease deeds were executed between plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 separately wherein admitted rent was Rs. 20000/ per month each . Both the lease deeds were signed by defendant no.3 in capacity of partner and proprietor of defendant no.1 and 2 respectively. Although evasively denied in the pleadings, the execution of third lease deed Ex. PW 1/5, was admitted by defendant no. 3 in his cross examination as well as at the time of admission denial done on 29.11.07. It is pertinent to mention here that since it was under stamped and unregistered, on the objection of defendants it was seized and plaintiff was made to pay double the penalty amount after it was sent to Collector of Stamps. Thus now there are three contd................(g) 14 lease deeds all effective from 01.07.06 for a period of two years. The receipt of legal notice dated 08.01.07 Ex. PW 1/8 whereby the plaintiff terminated the lease in hand is not denied by the defendants either in the plaint or even in the evidence. Perusal of legal notice Ex. PW 1/8 dated 08.01.07 shows that in para 7 plaintiff has categorically terminated the tenancy w.e.f 01.03.07. Once a legal notice with this stipulation is admittedly received by the defendants I see no reason as to why all the three leases in hand shall not be treated as duly and legally terminated.
27.At this juncture Ld. Counsel for defendant has drawn the attention of the court that the third lease Ex. PW 1/3 (1/5) with a prayer that it should not be considered in so far as there is an anamoly therein. It is pointed out that the total lease area was 3800 sqr. fts and the first two registered lease deeds covered the entire area as 1800 and 2000 sqfts. respectively. The third unregistered lease deed was for entire 3800 sq fts. In case all the areas are added up they reached 7600 sq. fts. which is not plausible on the ground floor of 600 sq. yards plot. It is argued that for this reason this document is a sham one and shall not be considered at all while arriving at a decision in this suit.
contd................(g) 15
28. As far as this plea is concerned although the perusal of the document shows that the third deed contain the same area as mentioned in lease no.1 and 2 but the intention behind creation of these three lease deeds has to be looked into from each and every perspective. Para 4 of the plaint is specific in so far as that it pleads that the parties agreed to give and take on rent a premises of 3800 sq. fts for for Rs. 60,000/ per month. The deeds were supposed to be three in number having rent of Rs. 20,000/ each for a period of two years. All the three lease deeds were admittedly signed by plaintiff in person apart from defendant no. 3. As detailed supra defendant no. 3 signed in three different capacities of being a partner, proprietor and in person for defendant no.1 to 3 respectively. This entire factual matrix has been admitted by the defendant specifically in their common written statement wherein they say that these pleas need no reply. As mentioned supra all the three lease deeds were admitted at the admission/denial stage as well apart from specific admission in the cross examination that they were signed and executed by them and were witnessed by their property dealer Sh. Aman Arora. So much so that even in the cross examination of PW1, defence gave the suggestion to the plaintiff that defendants deliberately signed these three deeds (including contd................(g) 16 the unregistered lease deed) on the asking of the plaintiff. It is also admitted that the entire agreed lease amount was Rs. 60,000/ per month.
29.Transfer of Property Act does not require that all lease deeds need to be necessarily in writing or registered ones. Once defendants principally agrees to take on lease 3800 sq. ft. at rent @ Rs. 60,000/ PM number of deeds is not of much significance. Claimed measurement calculation of area under lease cannot vitiate the entire process. More so, when defendant was himself a party to it and he got the possession of the leased property only upon execution of all the three lease deeds. Having availed fruits of these three lease deeds defendant is now estopped from agitating the legality and veriasity all these deeds in the manner sought.
30. It is a settled legal proposition that once a party to an agreement has availed and enjoyed all the beneficial clauses and fruits of a contract, subsequently such a party is estopped from questioning the legality of the same by raising trivial objections to such a contract.
contd................(g) 17
31.This objection in its own wisdom is not unsuit the entire claim of the plaintiff more so when plaintiff has already paid double the penalty amount under the Directions of the court and the document was exhibited, proved or admitted by the defendant in the cross examination. Plaintiff has also not been cross examined on averments contained in para 56 of the affidavit which pertains to the three lease deed & so they are deemed admitted . As such this issue is answered accordingly.
32. Issue no. 1:
Whether the rent of the premises was Rs. 60,000/ per month or whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,81,400/ as balance of arrears of rent from 01.07.06 to 28.02.07? (OPP)
33. As far as the first leg of this issue is concerned, as decided supra since the defendant had taken 3800 Sq.ft. area on lease @ Rs. 6,000/ per month under three lease deeds, the rate of rent is hereby concluded to be Rs. 60,000/ per month between the parties.
34.As far as the second aspect of recovery of Rs. 2,81,400 w.e.f 01.07.06 to 28.02.07 is concerned, it is observed that this amount is sought to be contd................(g) 18 recovered under different heads.
HEAD Rs. 1. Balance Rent @ Rs. 20,000/ p.m. Rs. 60,000/ for the month of July, August and September'06 2. Rent @ Rs. 60,000/ p.m. for December'06 Rs. 1,80,000/ and January, February 2007 3. Damages @ Rs. 6,000/ (Rs. 2,000/ each Rs. 30,000/ for 3 lease deeds dt. 28.08.06 (two) and dt. 01.09.06 (one) w.e.f 01.03.07 to 05.03.07 4. Interest @ 18% on rent from due date Rs. 9,200/ till 28.02.07 5. Notice Charges, of notice Rs. 2,200/ dated 08.01.07
35. FIRST HEAD: As far as first head of Rs. 60,000/ is concerned, as per plaintiff only Rs. 40,000/ per month was paid by the defendants for the month of July, August and September 2006 and @ Rs. 20,000/ per month a sum of Rs. 60,000/ remained unpaid. It is interesting to observed that in the cross examination of defendant no. 3 as DW1 he was suggested that Rs. 60,000/ qua arrears out of July, August and September 2006 stands received the plaintiff vide cheque no. 842444 dated 11.10.06. Having so admitted during the course of evidence, in my considered view contd................(g) 19 plaintiff is not entitled to seek recovery of money under head no.1.
36. SECOND HEAD: It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant did not pay Rs. 60,000/ per month rent between 01.02.06 and 1.07.2006. These calculations are contained in Para 8 of the plaint and in reply to this para all that defendant has pleaded is that it does not need any reply This plea in the WS tantamounts to admission of facts since there is not even a evasive denial as per Order 8 Rule 4 CPC what to talk of specific denial as per Order 8 Rule 5 CPC. However LD. Counsel for defendant has submitted that defendant has paid rent for all the three months. It is conceded that he has no documentary evidence to show that rent for these months was paid although he claimed so in his evidence. As such in my considered view plaintiff is entitled to recovery of money under this head i.e. Rs. 1.80 lacs.
37.HEAD NO. 3 ALONGWITH ISSUE NO. 4 : Plaintiff has claimed damages @ Rs. 6,000/ per day for the period 01.03.07 to 05.03.07 . It is argued that all the three lease deeds had a stipulation which provides for mense profit @ Rs. 2,000/ per day . For the sake of convenience contents of contd................(g) 20 Clause 5 of the Lease Deeds is reproduced hereinunder:
CLAUSE 5 of LEASE DEED : That in case due to any reason if the lease is not extended for further period, the lessee will hand over the possession of the premises by vacating peacefully to the lessor on or before the midnight of 30.06.08. In case of default the lessee shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per day as damages to the Lessors for the use and occupation of the premises.
38.Plain reading of this clause shows that it would become operative if the defendants do not vacate the premises after expiry of the lease period on 30.06.08 and in case there is no extension thereof. As such this clause does not provide that it can be invoked even if the lease is terminated or evoked before the expiry of two years period. In my considered view it cannot be taken recourse to in the manner sought to be done by plaintiff. Although Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act provides that parties can agree to a stipulated penalty upon breach of a contract but this legal provision can be availed only upon accrual of agreed stipulated conditions.
contd................(g) 21
39. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 runs as under
Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for: When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation no exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.
40. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the unilateral termination of lease should be regarded as a condition which qualifies for invoking of above clause. In my considered view since in the agreement it is nowhere provided that the clause of penalty of Rs. 6,000/ per day (Rs. 2,000/ per day per lease) can be invoked on termination of lease on " any ground", it cannot be done by plaintiff. What is supposed to take effect after expiration of two years cannot be made operative unilaterally as sought to be done by plaintiff. As such I am of the considered view that plaintiff is not entitled to take sum of Rs. 6,000/ per day by invoking the penalty qua damages but contd................(g) 22 this does not mean that plaintiff is not entitled to any mense profit whatsoever.
41. As far as the quantum of mense profit on agreed rent an inquiry provided under Section 20 Rule 12 CPC is concerned , it is conceded by L. Counsel for plaintiff that he has not placed or proved on record any document to show that the tenanted property could have fetched rent @ Rs. 1.80 lacs per month as per @ Rs. 6,000/ per day. There is also no documentary or oral evidence to show that property could have fetch more than Rs. 60,000/ per month i.e. rent agreed between the parties. It was agreed between the parties that the rent shall remain Rs. 60,000/ per month for next two years i.e. upto 30.06.08. The lease was to terminate within months of its inception in July '06 w.e.f. 01.03.07. The property was vacated on 13.02.2009 and as such defendant continued to occupy the property for additional 7 ½ months w.e.f. 30.06.08 i.e. the agreed date of expiry of lease. It is a settled legal proposition that this Court can take judicial notice of the facts that property prices and lease value have substantially increase in the city. In the facts and circumstances plaintiff is found entitled to the agreed rate of Rs. 60,000/ per month w.e.f. 01.03.07 contd................(g) 23 to 30.06. 08. However as far as period beyond 30.06.08 is concerned, w.e.f. 01.07.08 to 13.02.09 is concerned, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff is entitled to invoke the penalty clause as agreed between the parties under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The plain reading of the penalty clause in conjunction with Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act shows that it could not have been invoked before expiration of two years period but since defendants failed to vacate the property even after expiration of two years period despite termination plaintiff is entitled to invoke Section 74 of Indian Contract Act and demand the stipulated penalty. Having once agreed to pay Rs. 6,000/ per day in case of non vacation after expiration of agreed two years period, defendant cannot back out from the same. I see no strength in the plea that since the tenancy was terminated prior to 2 years tenure period, the penalty clause cannot be invoked. As such plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 6,000/ per day w.e.f.01.07.08 upto 12.02.09.
42. HEAD NO. 4 : As far as rate of interest is concerned, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff concedes that there is no stipulation on agreed rate of rent between the parties and 24% on the higher side. As such in my contd................(g) 24 considered view plaintiff is entitled interest @ 16% p.a. .
43. HEAD NO. 5: No separate cash receipt qua this legal notice has been filed. As such no amount can be granted to the plaintiff under this head.
44. Relief: In view of the decision of above issues suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost to the effect that Plaintiff is entitled to recover of Rs.1.80 lac for Dec'06 & JanFeb'07 alongwith interest @ 16% p.a. w.e.f. 01.03.07, pendent lite and till date of realisation . Also plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 60,000/ per month from 01.03.07 to 30.06.08 i.e. Rs. 9.60 lacs alongwith interest @ 16% p.a w.e.f. 01.07.08 to pendent lite and till date of realisation and Rs. 6,000/ per day from 01.07.08 to 12.02.09 i.e. Rs. 12.42 lacs alongwith interest @ 16% p.a w.e.f. 13.02.09 onwards, pendent lite till date of realisation. Plaintiff shall pay deficient Court fees. Since the defendant has paid some amount during the course of trial @ Rs. 40,000/ per month from 01.03.07 to August 2008 same shall be adjusted. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to RR.
ANNOUNCED & DICTATED (SURINDER S. RATHI)
IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.12.2010 ADJ07: CENTRAL
DELHI
contd................(g)
25
CS NO: 191/09
VIMAL KOCHHAR ............................ (PLAINTIFF)
VS.
1. M/s. KUSUM ENTERPRISES
2. SHRI SHREYANS JHUNJHUN WALA
3. SHRI SHREYANS JHUNJHUN WALA......................... (DEFENDANTs) 15.12.2010 Pr: Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff Sh. R.S. Mahla LD. Counsel for defendant Sh. M.S. Rohilla FA heard. Vide separate judgment of he day, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost to the effect that Plaintiff is entitled to recover of Rs.1.80 lac for Dec'06 & JanFeb'07 alongwith interest @ 16% p.a. w.e.f. 01.03.07, pendent lite and till date of realisation . Also plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 60,000/ per month from 01.03.07 to 30.06.08 i.e. Rs. 9.60 lacs alongwith interest @ 16% p.a w.e.f. 01.07.08 to pendent lite and till date of realisation and Rs. 6,000/ per day from 01.07.08 to 12.02.09 i.e. Rs. 12.42 lacs alongwith interest @ 16% p.a w.e.f. 13.02.09 onwards, pendent lite till date of realisation. Plaintiff shall pay deficient Court fees. Since the defendant has paid some amount during the course of trial @ Rs. 40,000/ per month from 01.03.07 to August 2008 same shall be adjusted. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to RR.
(SURINDER S. RATHI) ADJ: DELHI:15.12.2010 contd................(g) 26 contd................(g)