Delhi District Court
M/S Arun Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Huawei Telecommunications India ... on 22 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN:
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT 03 - SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. : 479/2023
M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES
INDIA PVT. LTD.
Through its Director Sh. Arun Sood
C/o House No. 7/17, Roop Nagar
Delhi-110007 ........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS
(INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD.
Throudh its Managing Director/ Principal Officer(s)/
Director(s)/ Officer(s)
9th Floor, Capital Cyberscape
Gurugram Manesar Urban Complex
Sector 59, Ullahwas
Gurgaon-122011 (Haryana)
Also at :
Registered office at :
7th Floor, Tower A, Spaze
1-Tech Park, Sohna Road
Sector 49, Gurgaon-122011 (Haryana) ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.05.2023
Date when final arguments heard : 24.10.2024
Date of Judgment : 22.11.2024
CS (COMM) No.479/23
M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs.
M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 1/ 26
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the suit for recovery of Rs. 16,66,000/- along with interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is the company registered under the Companies Act and the defendant is an ancillary and wholly owned company of HUAWEI, a multinational Chinese company. The defendant took on rent a premises i.e. Ground Floor, rear portion, measuring the super built up area 5750 sq. ft. and carpet area 4500 sq. ft. in the building known as Arun Industries located on the plot bearing no. A-17, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 from one M/s Arun Industries, a partnership concern in which Sh. Arun Sood is also one of the partner. The tenancy commenced w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and was agreed to expire on 31.03.2020 at the rate of Rs. 3 Lacs per month. Alongwith the said agreement, the defendant also entered into a common area maintenance agreement dt. 24.06.2019 with the plaintiff for a period w.e.f. 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 thereby agreed to avail services of maintenance and operation of amenities for a consideration of monthly service charges of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The said common area maintenance agreement was co-existent and CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 2/ 26 co-terminus with the lease agreement. The defendant paid the maintenance service charges till the month of February, 2020. The said tenancy agreement was to expire by efflux of time on 31.03.2020. The defendant on 26.02.2020 through email intimated about its intention not to continue with lease agreement and vacating the suit premises on 31.03.2020, and also sought refund of its security amount. However, on 30.03.2020, the defendant communicated its inability to move out due to Government lockdown order and proposed to vacate the same on situation becoming normal. Defendant refused to pay the rent and maintenance charges. On 01.04.2020, the defendant again sent an email that due to extension of the lockdown by Government till 03.05.2020, office could not be handed over and also defendant will not liable to pay any rent charges. The plaintiff through its representative Umesh Giri repeatedly called upon the defendant to hand over the vacant possession and for the payment of rent/ damages.
3. On 21.05.2020, the defendant again sent an email stating therein that the Government has again extended the lockdown till 31.05.2020 so defendant unable to hand over the office till 31.05.2020. Thereafter the plaintiff issued a notice through email dt. 23.05.2020 with request to clear the rental for the month of March, April and May alongwith electricity CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 3/ 26 charges. On 30.05.2020, the plaintiff again issued another email reiterating its demand for possession and payment of arrears of rent. On 05.06.2020, the defendant issued a baseless, false and motivated communication. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent another email dt. 06.06.2020 stating therein they will not charge rental for the month of June, 2020 starting from 01.06.2020 to 30.06.2020. On 06.06.2020, the defendant wrote another email and then issued two emails dt. 09.06.2020 and 10.06.2020 respectively. The plaintiff vide email dt. 10.06.2020 also attached a statement of outstanding dues pertaining to the month of March, April and June, 2020.
4. The plaintiff received a letter dt. 17.06.2020 from the advocate of the defendant, the defendant made false, baseless and fabricated allegations of not refunding the security amount which were replied through advocate of plaintiff. The defendant has only been postponing handing over the possession by repeatedly taking excuse of lockdown.
5. In the month of August 2020, the plaintiff filed two civil suits against the defendant and during the pendancy of the suit, on the court direction on 02.09.2020, the defendant handed over the possession of the suit premises, however, failed to pay the arrears of rent, maintenance charges and electricity charges. The plaintiff withdrawn the civil suit on 11.01.2023 with liberty CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 4/ 26 to file before the Commercial Courts. The defendant failed to pay the agreed maintenance charges, electricity charges and even unable to pay the paint work and further liable to restore the 88 numbers of Godrej chairs, therefore, filed the present suit claiming Rs. 16,66,000/- alongwith the interest @ 24% per annum.
6. In written statement, it is stated that the present suit is filed to usurp the cumulative non-interest, non-refundable security deposit of Rs. 13,20,000/- lying with M/s Arun Industries in CS(Comm) No. 478 of 2023. The plaintiff has taken illegal benefit of lockdown situation and tried to extort the money from the defendant. It is stated that with effect from 31.03.2020, the suit premises has been in constructive possession of the landlord i.e. M/s Arun Industries and the plaintiff jointly. The defendant communicated its intention to vacate the premises on 31.03.2020 and having made all arrangements in this regard, therefore, no occasion for the defendant to pay the alleged maintenance service charges after 31.03.2020 as the defendant has been prevented to vacate the suit premises due to the force majeure condition and thus not liable to pay the maintenance charges as alleged by the plaintiff. In any case, the plaintiff/ landlord also agreed with the said contention of the defendant and thus did not object to the email dt. 26.03.2020, 31.03.2020, CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 5/ 26 17.04.2020 and 21.05.2020. It is also stated that the contents of the email dt. 30.03.2020 issued by the plaintiff/ landlord was misconceived and duly replied by the defendant through email dt. 05.06.2020. It is stated that no cause of action arose in the present suit, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. In replication, the plaintiff denied the contentions of the defendant in written statement and reiterated its stand.
8. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 02.04.2024 :-
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,66,000/- against the defendant ? (OPP)
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for pendent lite interest, if any at what rate of interest ? (OPP)
3. Whether defendant had showed its intention to vacate the premises by email dated 26.02.2020 on 31.03.2020 ? (OPD)
4. Whether the plaintiff having not replied to the emails of the defendant about its intention to vacate the premises immediately upon lifting of lockdown is estopped from claiming rent after 31.03.2020? (OPD)
5. Whether the plaintiff is liable to refund the security deposit ? (OPD)
6. Relief.
The matter was referred to Ld. Local Commissioner for recording of evidence.
CS (COMM) No.479/23M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 6/ 26
9. The plaintiff examined PW1 Arun Sood and the defendant examined DW1 Sachin Digambar Tayshete. BRIEF SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE.
10. PW1 Arun Sood tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A and in cross-examination, PW1 in reply to question that email dt. 26.02.2020, the defendant informed that they will vacate the suit premises on 31.03.2020, however, no email was received by the plaintiff but on pointing out the same, stated that it is correct. He had responded that the email dt. 26.03.2020 sent by the defendant to his personal ID. The reply was given by his officer Sh. Umesh on 23.05.2020 to the various emails sent by the defendant seeking extension. He denied suggestion that no bill was raised by the plaintiff in the month of April, May and June, 2020. He stated that due to Covid restrictions, premises could not be vacated. He also denied suggestion that CAM agreement charges for the last month of the agreement were to be adjusted for security deposit lying with the plaintiff. He denied suggestion that plaintiff is liable to pay the refund the balance interest fee security deposit.
11. DW1 Sachin Digambar Tayshete tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A and in cross-examination stated that it is correct that the premises was handed over to landlord/ Arun Sood on 02.09.2020, through the proceedings in LC CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 7/ 26 conducted by Sh. Animesh Gaba, appointed by the court of DJ in CS DJ 320 of 2020. He stated that he has used the premises till 22.03.2020. He further stated that they have not agreed for the payment of Rs. 90,000/- for whitewash. He further stated that he could not tell anything about the return of chairs. He stated that it is also correct that there is no force majeure clause and also denied the suggestion that defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 16,66,000/-.
MATERIAL EXHIBITS.
12. Ex.PW1/1 is the certificate of incorporation; Ex.PW1/2 is the extract of resolution; Ex.PW1/3 is the copy of lease deed; Ex.PW1/4 is the common area maintenance agreement; Ex.PW1/5 is the copies of email communication between the parties dated 26.02.2020, 31.03.2020, 17.04.2020, 21.05.2020, 23.05.2020, 30.05.2020, 05.06.2020, 06.06.2020, 09.06.2020, 10.06.2020; Ex.PW1/6 is the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act; Ex.PW1/7 is the legal notice-cum-reply dt. 17.06.2020; Ex.PW1/8 is the legal notice dt. 03.07.2020; Ex.PW1/9 is the email dt. 14.07.2020; Ex.PW1/10 is the copy of notification dt. 30.04.2020; Ex.PW1/11 is the non-starter report.
Ex.DW1/1 is the minutes of meeting dt. 16.01.2023; Ex.DW1/2 is the board resolution dt. 29.12.2023; Mark X is the CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 8/ 26 local commissioner report/ proceedings regarding handing over the possession of the premises on 02.09.2020. Submissions of the counsels :
13. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the defendant admittedly not paid the maintenance charges from 01.03.2020 till 31.08.2020 for an amount of Rs. 8,40,000/- and further not paid the electricity charges, whitewash charges and also failed to restore the 88 chairs valued for Rs. 4,84,000/-. It is submitted that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the emails exchanging [(Ex.PW1/5 (colly)] wherein the defendant showing its inability to vacate the premises in view of the lockdown and stating that plaintiff has been demanding the payment of agreed charges and vacant possession of the premises. He also stated that there is no dispute between the parties on the documents filed and relied upon by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11. Ld. Counsel submitted that the maintenance agreement and circumstances surrounding the lockdown period do not negate the defendant's responsibility to physically vacate and hand over the premises. The defendant is alleging that the landlord deliberately creating hurdles in vacation of the property, however, did not specify date, time and day for handing over the possession. The defendant also not provided any evidence or testimony regarding his alleged CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 9/ 26 intentions to discontinue the maintenance services. The defendant also not challenged or confronted the witness regarding the claimed amount of Rs. 16,66,000/- for arrears of maintenance charges, electricity dues and other damages.
14. It is submitted that vide email dt. 26.02.2020, the defendant company showed its intention to vacate the premises on 31.03.2020, however, continued to delay the handing over the possession through series of emails dt. 01.04.2020, 21.05.2020, 05.06.2020, 06.06.2020 and 09.06.2020 on the pretext of lockdown. Th guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Ex.PW1/10) specifically permitted movement the goods/ cargo, therefore, the defendant had opportunity to vacate and hand over the possession from 15.04.2020 but not so done by the defendant. The defendant though express his intentions to vacate the premises via email, however, not vacated the premises until the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit. The plaintiff's right to claim the maintenance charges and other dues is not negated by the plaintiff's failure to specifically replied to the defendant's email. The burden of proving the refund of security deposits rests to the defendant company. The possession was handed over on 02.09.2023 and right to claim the security deposit, if applicable, would have arisen on that day, however, the defendant company did not file any suit for recovery for the said security deposit CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 10/ 26 within statutory period of 3 years which expired on 01.09.2023. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery on 10.05.2023 and even no counter claim filed by the defendant and also not filed any evidence regarding the security claim.
Ld. Counsel submitted that the defendant did not exhibit any relevant document and even the resolution Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2 were objected as defendant failed to file corroborative evidence i.e minutes of meeting. DW1 in his affidavit of evidence did not mention whether the defendant company offered to return the physical possession of the premises by specifying any day, date or time. The defendant in para 20 of the affidavit of evidence exceeded the scope of defendant's written statement and unfounded claim for refund of security deposit. Ld. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff able to prove its case and entitled for the relief claimed.
15. Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that the documents filed alongwith the plaint are not disputed and the only dispute between the parties arose on account of alleged claim of CAM charges, electricity charges, paint work and chair prices. Ld. Counsel submitted that vide email dt. 26.02.2020, the defendant informed that the two lease agreements are coming to end on 31.03.2020 and they are not renewing the same. It is also stated in the said email that they have deposited refundable CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 11/ 26 security deposit subject to deductions for normal wear and tear which is mutually accepted by both the parties, however, they are not liable for any rental, maintenance charges, demands and liabilities in connection with the demise premises from the day, they vacate and leave the demise premises i.e. 31.03.2020. It is further stated that the lockdown has been imposed on 24.03.2020 and all the activities which are not considered essential were prohibited. The vacation of the premises was not under essential activity, therefore, the defendant could not vacate the premises. Vide email dt. 26.03.2020, it is informed by the defendant to the plaintiff that due to lockdown they unable to hand over the possession of the premises on 31.03.2020 and once the situation become normal, they will vacate the office and requires week's time to remove the material and further have no rental liabilities after 31.03.2020. Thereafter, vide email dt. 31.03.2020, the defendant communicated in the same manner and stated that they will not be able to pay the rental/ CAM charges after termination on 31.03.2020, thereafter, again reiterated the same fact. Vide email dt. 21.05.2020, stated that the Government had extended the lockdown till 31.05.2020 and once the lockdown lifted, they will remove all the office assets and again reiterated that HUWAEI will not be liable for any rental after 31.03.2020. Ld. Counsel submitted that no reply to the emails were sent by the CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 12/ 26 plaintiff and this fact was admitted by PW1. The plaintiff also understood the situation and not insisted for taking possession, however, later in the suit alleged that its employee Umesh Giri was in touch with defendant for vacation of the premises but there is no email from the plaintiff to the defendant calling for possession. In the email dt. 23.05.2020 and 30.05.2020 sent by Umesh Giri to the defendant, there is no reference of any alleged communication between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff understood and agreed that no rent shall be payable during the period of lockdown as also apparent from the fact as no invoice for rent or CAM charges were raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant. It is admitted by PW1 that there was no response to the emails of the plaintiff dt. 26.03.2020, 31.03.2020, 17.04.2020 and 21.05.2020, however, vide email dt. 23.05.2020 stated that defendant has not handed over the physical possession and demanded rent from the defendant. In this, they have taken the plea that Delhi High Court had passed an order stating that during Covid pandemic period, rentals cannot be waived. It is also stated in the said email that security guard, maintenance men are coming since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, and requested to clear the rental for the month of March, April and May, 2020 alongwith the minimum charges of the electricity. Vide email dt. 30.05.2020, the plaintiff CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 13/ 26 again wrote that defendant has not vacated the premises, therefore, they will raise the bill for June, 2020 also.
The defendant vide email dt. 05.06.2020 wrote that the plaintiff is asking for the rental and now the lockdown is over, however, the plaintiff is pressurizing to make the payment and not even allowing to remove the material/ assets from the office, and due to which hand over is delayed and they are not responsible for any payment of delay. The plaintiff vide email dt. 06.06.2020 stated that the defendant is hiding under the excuse of lockdown and it is more than a week since the lockdown opened and even now refusing to settle the accounts and in occupation of the premises thus rental needs to be paid, however, will not charge the rental for the month of June, 2020 but there were no waiver of the previous rent, and the present waiver is subject to clearing old dues and vacating the premises within 48 hours of the clearance. In response vide email dt. 06.06.2020 from defendant to plaintiff it is stated that they are okay in vacating the premises within 48 hours, however, as the plaintiff wanted to meet the management on 08.06.2020, they agreed. Pursuant to the meeting, there is an email dt. 09.06.2020 from the plaintiff to the defendant, it is suggested that as per joint inspection, the following things to be done i.e. Painting to the office. Out of 88 workable chairs, 29 found damaged and needs to be repaired, CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 14/ 26 however, rests things are okay. Email dt. 10.06.2020 from the defendant to the plaintiff to confirm the date for handing over the premises and they are moving away within 2-3 days the material from the office and there will be no rental obligation for June, 2020. The plaintiff in reply to the email dt. 10.06.2020 demanded rent for April to June and chairs. The defendant thereafter sent the legal notice dt. 17.06.2020 denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff. There is no notice on behalf of the plaintiff fixing the date of vacation to hand over the premises. The plaintiff was holding the security deposit and did not allow the defendant to vacate the premises. The plaintiff not entitled for rent of June due to hindrance created by the plaintiff and it is only when the request was made by the defendant in previous round of the litigation, LC was appointed for vacation of premises. Ld. Counsel submitted that the defendant has not used the said facility from 26.02.2020, therefore not entitled to pay any rent and the maintenance charges to the plaintiff and suit is liable to be dismissed. (Relied upon Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs. Amit J. Bhalla, 2001(1) SCR 54, dt. 04.01.2001; Union of India Vs. G. Singh & Ors, MANU/DE/2383/2018 dt. 04.07.2018 DHC; Deluxe Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Narayani Associates & Ors., MANU/MH/0534/2023 dt. 17.02.2023 High Court of Bombay; Hindustan Cleanenergy Ltd. Vs. Maif Investments India 2 Pte.
CS (COMM) No.479/23M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 15/ 26 Ltd. & Ors., MANU/DE/1703/2021 dt. 16.08.2021 DHC; Harikumar G Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors., MANU/KE/3853/2020 dt. 18.12.2020 High Court of Kerala; Haji Ghulam Qadir Akhoon Vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., MANU/JK/0357/2024 dt. 02.05.2024 High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh and Srinagar, Suresh Kumar D. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., MANU/KE/0431/2022 dt. 31.01.2022 High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam; Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI), MANU/SC/2931/2006 dt. 25.05.2006 SC)
16. Plaintiff as well as defendant also filed written submissions.
17. Arguments heard. Record perused.
18. My issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No. 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,66,000/- against the defendant ? (OPP) Issue No. 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for pendent lite interest, if any at what rate of interest ? (OPP) It is the admitted case of both the parties that defendant had taken on rent the suit premises from the plaintiff and in this regard, the unregistered rent agreement as well as separate Common Area Maintenance Agreement (CAM) were CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 16/ 26 executed and the tenancy is w.e.f. 01.04.2019 till 31.03.2020. There is no dispute over the rate of rent as well as the rate of monthly charges of Rs. 1,40,000/- towards maintenance. It is also admitted by both the parties that there are emails exchanges [(Ex.PW1/5(colly)] between the parties. Admittedly, the defendant has issued the email dt. 26.02.2020 informing that both the agreements are expiring on 31.03.2020 and they are not renewing the same and requesting for refund of non-interest herein refundable security deposit (NIRSD), subject to legitimate deduction of normal wear and tear, however, in the meanwhile, prior to 31.03.2020, the Nationwise lockdown was imposed on 24.03.2020, pursuant to which, vide legal notice dt. 26.03.2020, defendant communicated that they unable to move out the assets, therefore, will vacate after normalization within a week, thereafter, again communicated through email dt. 31.03.2020 the said intent and then again on 17.04.2020 and on 21.05.2020. It is also specifically communicated that they are not liable to pay the rental or other charges in the said period. The defendant did not respond to those emails, however vide email dt. 23.05.2020 the plaintiff communicated to the defendant that defendant had not handed over the physical possession till date and the maintenance staff are coming since the beginning of Covid, therefore, requested to clear the rental rent for the month CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 17/ 26 of March, April and May, 2020 alongwith minimum charges of electricity for which the bills and debit notes are enclosed, thereafter vide email dt. 30.05.2020 again communicated to the defendant that they have not vacated the premises.
19. However, vide email dt. 05.06.2020 the defendant wrote to the plaintiff that they are ready to move out but the plaintiff insisting on the rent and not allowing them to remove the material/ assets from the office, then vide email dt. 06.06.2020, the plaintiff wrote that their representative were available at the building and if the defendant to vacate the premises, they can easily managed to remove the belongings, however, not done so and also stated that they will not charge for the month of June if vacate within 48 hours. Thereafter the defendant wrote an email dt. 06.06.2020 that they are ready to vacate within 48 hours but the defendant agreed for meeting with the plaintiff, and then in the meeting the joint inspection was agreed and thereafter vide email dt. 09.06.2020 defendant wrote to the plaintiff that they are ready for painting of office and repairs of chairs and then also wrote the email dt. 10.06.2020 to confirm the date of their handing over the office as per discussions.
20. Pursuant to these emails, defendant issued the legal notice dt. 17.06.2020 (Ex.PW1/7) directing the plaintiff to allow CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 18/ 26 the defendant to remove the properties/ equipments from the lease property and refund the security deposit of Rs. 13,20,000/-. However, in reply notice dt. 03.07.2020 (Ex.PW1/8), the plaintiff denied to have caused any hindrance in vacating the lease property and directed to clear the arrears, paint and repair charges. Thereafter, again vide email dt.14.07.2020 (Ex.PW1/9), the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that they are waiting for delivery of the possession and called upon to hand over the vacant possession and they give refund the security amount after vacation and clearing of the outstanding amount.
21. It is not disputed that the defendant has determined the lease agreement vide email dt. 26.02.2020 and showed its categorical intentions to vacate the premises by 31.03.2020. The said agreement also expiring by efflux of time on 31.03.2020. The said act of vacation, however could not be completed on 31.03.2020 because of Nationwise lockdown imposed on 24.03.2020 which kept on extending. As per email dt. 14.07.2020 (Ex.PW1/9), the plaintiff relied upon Government of India vide its order DO No. 40-3/2020-DM-I (A) dt. 15.04.2020 consolidated with revised guidelines of lockdown and all goods traffic will be allowed to ply. However, the defendant vide email dt. 17.04.2020 communicated to the plaintiff that due to extension of lockdown till 03.05.2020, the office could not be CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 19/ 26 handed over and thereafter again vide email dt. 21.05.2020 stated that the Government extended the lockdown till 31.05.2020, therefore, they will not be able to hand over the office till 31.05.2020. These emails dt. 26.03.2020, 31.03.2020, 17.04.2020 and 21.05.2020 are not disputed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is thereby recognizing the difficulty of vacation of the premises, however the plaintiff by taking the benefit of Delhi High Court order vide email dt. 23.05.2020 and 30.05.2020 denying the waiver of rent and other charges, and requested the payment of rent for the month of March, April and May, 2020 and minimum charges of electricity.
22. The plaintiff in this regard relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case titled Ramanand and Ors. Vs. Dr. Girish Soni & Anr., in RC Rev. 447/2017 dt. 21.05.2020. However, in para 32 of the said judgment, it is observed by the Hon'ble High Court that :
...... "32. The Tenants' application for suspension of rent is thus liable to be rejected inasmuch as while invoking the doctrine of suspension of rent on the basis of a force majeure event, it is clear from the submissions made that the Tenants do not intend to surrender the tenanted premises. While holding that suspension of rent is not permissible in these facts, some postponement or relaxation in the schedule of payment can be granted owing to the lockdown."CS (COMM) No.479/23
M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 20/ 26 As per this judgment, no suspension of rent is allowed because the tenant do not intend to surrender the tenanted premises, however in present case the factual situation is different. The defendant has already determined the contract vide email dt. 26.02.2020 and undertakes to vacate the premises on 31.03.2020 but unable to do so because of imposition of Nationwise lockdown. This fact was reiterated by subsequent emails dt. 26.03.2020, 31.03.2020, 17.04.2020 and 21.05.2020. The plaintiff also recognized the factum of lockdown, however by taking benefit of aforesaid judgment denying the waiver of rent and other charges. The defendant in present facts and circumstances intended to vacate the premises by 31.03.2020, therefore, entitled for suspension of rent and other charges from 31.03.2020 till 31.05.2020 but required to pay the rent and other charges for the month of March, June, July and August, 2020.
23. The defendant has not vacated the premises even after 31.05.2020. The defendant took the plea that he could not vacate the premises because of the hindrance created by the plaintiff. The plaintiff though not responded to the earlier emails dt. 26.03.2020, 31.03.2020, 17.04.2020 and 21.05.2020, however vide email dt. 23.05.2020 and 30.05.2020 requested the rentals as well as the charges. The defendant thereafter vide email dt. 05.06.2020 alleged that the plaintiff is not allowing to remove the CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 21/ 26 material, however plaintiff denied the allegation and undertakes to waive off the rent of the month June, 2020. Thereafter, both the parties met each other on 08.06.2020 and joint inspection has been done on 09.06.2020. The subject matter of joint inspection is reflected in email dt. 09.06.2020 by which defendant acknowledged the damaged 29 chairs, missing 59 chairs, measurements for whitewash and other charges including electricity. The defendant thereafter also not vacated the premises and raised the plea of hindrance created by the plaintiff, however not able to substantiate this fact through cogent evidence. There is no categorical and specific communication by the defendant that he is vacating the premises on some specific dates after joint inspection. Furthermore, there is no particulars when the plaintiff had created hindrance. The defendant unable to prove this factum of creating the hindrance by the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the rent, CAM charges and other expenses to the plaintiff for the month of March, and thereafter from 31.05.2020 till the date of vacation 02.09.2020 i.e. for the month of June, July and August, 2020.
24. The defendant also raised the plea of non-vacation of the premises on the ground that plaintiff had not refunded the security deposit, however defendant could not be given any benefit of this plea. It is settled law that the defendant cannot CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 22/ 26 refuse to vacate the premises merely on the basis that the plaintiff is not refunding the security deposit. (Relied upon Uberoisons (Machines) Ltd. Vs. Samtel Color Ltd., 2003 Legal Eagle (DEL) 449, dt. 16.05.2023, DHC)
25. In view of the above discussion, the defendant is bound to pay the CAM charges as well as other charges as prayed in the present suit for the month of March as well as from 31.05.2020 till the date of vacation i.e. 02.09.2020, effectively for the month of June, July and August, 2020. As per Local Commissioner report (Mark X), the defendant delivered the possession of the property to the plaintiff on 02.09.2020. Ld. Local Commissioner prepared the report containing rough proceedings, inventory list etc. Ld. Local Commissioner in its report also found 29 chairs damaged and not in good condition. The defendant is claiming total sum of Rs. 16,66,000/- including CAM charges @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per month from March, 2020 till August, 2020 and the electricity charges from March, 2020 till July, 2020 for a sum of Rs, 2,56,742/- and further Rs. 90,000/- towards the paint work, and Rs. 4,80,000/- towards the cost of the chairs.
26. Besides claiming the CAM charges @ Rs.
1,40,000/- per month, the plaintiff is also claiming the electricity charges for a total sum of Rs. 2,56,000/- for the month of March CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 23/ 26 to July, 2020. The said amount is not disputed by the defendant. The defendant is in possession of the suit property, therefore, liable to pay the electricity charges. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for payment of electricity charges of Rs. 2,56,000/-. The plaintiff is also claiming a sum of Rs, 90,000/- towards paint work which is also acknowledged by the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled for paint work of Rs. 90,000/-. The plaintiff also claiming the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- towards the repairing of the 29 chairs damaged and 59 chairs missing @ Rs. 5500/- per chair. This fact is also acknowledged by the defendant in the emails as well as found mentioned in the LC report of handing over the premises. Accordingly, the plaintiff is also entitled for this amount of Rs. 4,80,000/-.
27. The plaintiff is also entitled for CAM charges for the month of March, June, July, August, 2020 @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per month. The plaintiff is claiming the pendelite interest @ 24% per annum, however, in present fact and circumstances, interest @ 6% per annum is reasonable. It is also noticed that in terms of the CAM agreement, the plaintiff has taken the security deposit of Rs. 4,20,000/-. The said security deposit is not refunded, therefore, liable to be deducted from the total amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- x 4 = Rs. 5,60,000/-. The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- + Rs. 2,56,000/- + Rs. 90,000/- + Rs.
CS (COMM) No.479/23M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 24/ 26 4,80,000/- - Rs. 4,20,000/- = Rs. 9,66,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum pendente lite till its realization. Issue no. 1 & 2 are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 3. Whether defendant had showed its intention to vacate the premises by email dated 26.02.2020 on 31.03.2020 ? (OPD) Issue No. 4. Whether the plaintiff having not replied to the emails of the defendant about its intention to vacate the premises immediately upon lifting of lockdown is estopped from claiming rent after 31.03.2020? (OPD) Issue No. 5. Whether the plaintiff is liable to refund the security deposit ? (OPD)
28. With regard to issue nos. 3, 4 & 5, it is already discussed that the defendant had shown intention to vacate the premises vide email dt. 26.02.2020 and through subsequent emails, however unable to vacate the same due to lockdown. The benefit of lockdown and suspension of rent and other charges were given from 31.03.2020 till 31.05.2020. Thereafter, the defendant has not vacated the premises and his plea that he could not vacate the same due to hindrance created by the plaintiff already stands negated. However, the defendant is entitled for refund of security on vacation and the said security amount is to CS (COMM) No.479/23 M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs. M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 25/ 26 be adjusted towards the liability. Issue no. 3 to 5 are accordingly decided.
RELIEF
29. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 9,66,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY
KUMAR JAIN
KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2024.11.22
16:27:44 +0530
Announced in the open court
on 22nd November, 2024 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
District Judge, Comm-03
South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM) No.479/23
M/s ARUN INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Vs.
M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) CO. PVT. LTD. dt 22.11.2024 26/ 26