Delhi District Court
Ms. Maina Kanoria vs Sh. G.C. Mitra on 26 March, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE : DELHI
Suit No.305/2003
Ms. Maina Kanoria
W/o Mr. J.P. Kanoria
R/o 4, India Exchange Place,
Kolkatta - 700 001
through her Attorney
Mr. Sarfraj Ahmad Siddiqui,
S/o Sh. A.A. Siddiqui,
R/o O Block, H.No.22,
First Floor, South City,
Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. G.C. Mitra
S/o late Sh. P. Mitra,
R/o C-7/3, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110 057 ...Defendant
Date of institution : 02.12.2003
Date of decision : 26.03.2007
SUIT FOR RECOVERY, MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
DAMAGES
2
JUDGEMENT
The present suit for recovery, mandatory injunction and damages has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts, as made out from the plaint are that the plaintiff in the mid of 2002, planned to set up a business of Beauty Parlour. The defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by one property dealer and the defendant was interested in letting out his entire basement floor of the property No. C-7/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is stated that it was specifically brought to the notice of the defendant that the plaintiff was desirous to run the business of beauty parlour from the premises in question and the defendant agreed to let out the said suit premises for the said purpose. It was also brought to the notice of the defendant that for the said purpose of running a beauty parlour, some additions and alterations, by way of raising two bath rooms in the basement alongwith 3 requisite sanction and sewage facilities were also required and the defendant has specifically agreed for the said additions and alterations and had also recorded his consent in writing thereby permitting to do so.
3. It has been stated that the plaintiff had taken the suit premises on rent under the registered lease deed dated 4.9.2002 executed between the parties. It is stated that as per Clause 4 of the said Lease Deed dated 4.9.2002, the plaintiff paid to the defendant interest free security deposit of Rs.2,40,000/- equivalent to six months rent, byway of DD No.038556 dated 1.8.2002 issued in favour of the defendant and as per Clause 5 of the Lease Deed, the said security deposit of Rs.2,40,000/- is to be refunded by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of handing over of the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises by the plaintiff to the defendant in case of termination of lease for any reason whatsoever. Clause 5 of the said Lease Deed further entitle the plaintiff to terminate 4 the said Lease Deed by giving three months prior notice to the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff started the business of Beauty Parlour from the suit premises in the name and style of "INDIGO BEAUTY SALON, AYURVEDIC AND YOGA CENTRE" and continuously paid rent, electricity and water charges, as per said Lease Deed.
4. It has been stated that as per Lease Deed, vide three months prior notice dated 13.7.2003, the plaintiff terminated the said lease w.e.f 12.10.2003 and the said lease stands terminated w.e.f 12.10.2003 and as such the plaintiff was not be liable to pay any rent or penalty charges after 12.10.2003. The defendant was required to refund the said security amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and for the purpose of termination of the Lease and handing over the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises, discussions were held between the Attorney of the plaintiff and defendant. It is stated that regarding removal of the said two bath rooms 5 in the suit premises, the defendant requested not to remove the said bath rooms as he may have to let out the same to some other party of the same trade in future however, the defendant permitted the plaintiff to remove the ceramic and sanitary fittings including the sewage, booster pump from the said bath rooms as the defendant had expressed that the new party taking the premises, may install such fixtures of his/her own choice.
5. It has been further stated that the plaintiff vacated the suit premises and removed all her belongings therefrom, as aforesaid, as per lease termination notice dated 13.7.2003 and as agreed between the parties and on 12.10.2003, the plaintiff waited for the defendant in the suit premises to hand over the physical and vacant premises to the defendant, however, the defendant did not come to take over the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises and to refund the said security 6 amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. It is stated that Mr. S.A. Siddiqui, Attorney of the plaintiff, had personally contacted the defendant in the evening of 12.10.2003, thereby requiring the plaintiff to take the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises and for refund of Rs.2,40,000/- however, the defendant refused to refund the said amount of Rs.2,40,000/- of the security deposit and further required the plaintiff to hand over the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises, without insisting upon for payment of the said amount of Rs.2,40,000/-.
6. It has been stated that the plaintiff made complaints dated 13.10.2003 and 3.11.2003 to the Police authorities and also got issued a notice dated 20.10.2003 thereby requiring the defendant to take over the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises and further to repay the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- of the security deposit alongwith interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f 12.10.2003 till its realization alongwith a sum of 7 Rs.15,000/- per month towards the watch and ward charges towards the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in maintaining the suit property on behalf of the defendant, however the defendant with malafide intentions, neither refund the said amount of Rs.2,40,000/- nor took back the physical and vacant possession of the suit premises which resulted in the filing of the present suit, wherein it has been prayed on behalf of the plaintiff that a decree for a sum of Rs.2,47,200/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f 13.10.2003 till realization may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It has been further prayed that a decree of recovery of Rs.22,500/- being the amount of watch and ward charges (damages) calculated @ Rs.15,000/- per month for the period 13.10.2003 till the date of filing of the suit may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is further prayed that a decree of mandatory injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant may be directed to take the 8 physical and vacant possession of the suit premises from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for the cost of of the suit.
7. The defendant contested the present suit and filed the W.S and counter claim.
In the W.S, it has been stated that the basement of the premises bearing No. C-7/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was let out by the defendant to the plaintiff on Lease for a period of three years commencing from 1st July, 2002 to 30th June, 2005. The Lease Agreement was duly registered. The plaintiff had balantly violated the Clause-6 of the registered Lease Agreement and to cover up the violations the plaintiff had cleverly cooked up some stories and had finally resorted to committing forgery of documents, having forged the signatures of the defendant and using the same as genuine.
It has been submitted that the plaintiff had made several major 9 additions or alterations at the premises without the prior written consent of the defendant in utter disregard, violation and contravention of Clause 9 of the registered Lease Deed. The plaintiff has altered the complete sewage system of the premises. Originally, the sewage system was above the surface level. The plaintiff had converted the same to an objectionable and risky under-ground sewage system, incorporating drastic changes in the original design and layout of the sewage system. The plaintiff had broken the marble floorings and dug out large portions underneath the floorings to install lengthy sewage pipe lines and have subsequently patched up the floorings by sub-standard marbles, thus causing irreparable damage to the premises. The plaintiff had constructed two additional bathrooms for which no sanction exists. A legal notice for the violation of the above Clause was served by the defendant on 13.10.2003 asking for adequate compensation. The plaintiff chose not to reply the legal notice. It is stated that the Clause-10 & 12 of the aforesaid 10 Lease Agreement have also been violated by the plaintiff.
8. It has been stated that the plaintiff has not come before the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and the plaintiff has forged documents/letter dated 28.9.2002 and notice dated 13.7.2003 having forged the signatures of the defendant on it with a view to create false evidence and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the suit is premature as the period of tenacy for which Lease Agreement was executed has not expired and no notice for premature termination of the lease has been received by the defendant. All other averments made in the plaint have also been denied on behalf of the defendant and it has been submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the present suit.
In his counter claim, most of the averments made in the W.S have been reiterated by the defendant. It is further stated that the 11 defendant is entitled to claim the rent up to 21.1.2004 i.e for the entire period till the vacant possession of the suit premises was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant alongwith electricity and water charges and compensation for the damages caused by the plaintiff in the suit premises. It has been prayed that a decree of Rs.5,71,718/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till the date of realization and costs may be passed in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
9. The replication to the W.S and W.S to the counter claim have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein the contents of the W.S as well as the counter claim have been denied as incorrect and those of the plaint have been reiterated as correct.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following 12 Issues were framed on 3.12.2004 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff served the notice/letter dated 13.7.2003 terminating his tenancy on the defendant. If yes, to what effect ? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff has committed breach of Lease Agreement by effecting structural changes ? OPD
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount, as prayed for ? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to watch and ward charges. If yes, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the security deposit ? If yes, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
6) Relief.
Following Issues, as regard to the counter claim, were also 13 framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on the same date :
ISSUES AS REGARD COUNTER CLAIM:
1) Whether the plaintiff has caused damages to the suit property. If yes to what extent ?
OPD
2) Whether the defendant is entitled to rent for the period 1.10.2003 to 21.1.2004 ? OPD
3) Whether the defendant is entitled for rent for the notice period ? OPD
4) Whether the defendant is entitled to the recovery of electricity and water charges for the notice period ? OPD
5) Whether the defendant is entitled to any damages. If yes, to what amount ? OPD
6) Relief.
11. In her evidence, the plaintiff has examined PW-1 Sh. Sarfraj Ahmad Siddiqui. On the other hand, the defendant in his evidence, has 14 examined himself as DW-1.
12. I have heard the arguments and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant. I have also carefully perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the defendant.
13. My findings on the issues are as under:-
14. ISSUE NO 1 IN THE SUIT AND ISSUES NO.2,3 AND 4
AS REGARD COUNTER CLAIM The aforesaid issue no.1 in the suit and Issues no. 2,3 and 4 as regard counter claim are taken up together as these Issues are interconnected and have to be decided on the basis of the same evidence.
The onus to prove the Issue no.1 in the suit was upon the plaintiff and in order to discharge the onus, the plaintiff has examined 15 PW-1 Sh. Sarfraz Ahmed Siddiqui who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he stated that he is duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff vide power of attorney dt. 17.10.2003and he has proved the said power of attorney as Ex.PW1/1. PW-1 stated that in the mid of 2002, the plaintiff had planned to set up a business of Beauty Parlour and the defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by one property dealer. The defendant was interested in letting out the basement of his property no.C-7/3 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the defendant had agreed to let out the suit premises to the plaintiff for running her business of beauty parlour . PW-1 stated that the various terms and conditions which were agreed in between the parties were also reduced in to writing and a lease deed dt.4.9.2002 was executed and he has proved the said lease deed as Ex.PW1/3. PW-1 further stated that the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs. 2.4 lacs being the six months rent and the said amount was deposited by way of demand draft no. 038556 dt. 01.8.202 issued in 16 favour of the defendant and the defendant has acknowledged the receipt of the said demand draft and he has proved the copy of the same as Ex.P-1.
PW-1 stated that the plaintiff started running the business of beauty parlour w;.e.f. December 2002 under the name and style of INDIGO BEAUTY SALON AYURVEDIC & YOGA CENTRE.PW-1 stated that he was the working manager of the said business for the plaintiff and he participated in the entire negotiations. He stated that the plaintiff had made regular payment of rent and the various documents/receipts issued and acknowledged by the defendant under his signatures are Ex.P-2 to Ex. P-16.. He further stated that in the month of July 2003 the plaintiff decided to vacate the premises in question as the rent of the premises was very high and the plaintiff was finding it difficult to run the business from the premises in question.. Accordingly, a prior notice of three months was given on 13.7.2003 to 17 the defendant in writing and the defendant was informed that they will vacate the premises in question on 12.10.2003. He has proved the said notice dt. 13.7.2003 as Ex.PW1/4 and stated that the said notice was duly served upon the defendant by him and the same was duly acknowledged by the defendant .PW-1 further stated that he has vacated the suit premises and removed all their belongings therefrom on 12.10.2003 and as per lease and on 12.10.2003, he kept on waiting for the defendant to come downstairs and accept the keys of the suit premises and to receive the physical possession of the same, however the defendant did not come to receive the same. PW-1 further stated that he personally contacted the defendant in the evening of 12.10.2003 at about 5.30 or 6 P.M, thereby requiring the defendant to take physical and vacant possession of the suit premises and to refund the security of Rs. 2.4 lacs, but the defendant refused to do so. Thereafter he made complaint to the police and he has proved the said letter dt. 13.10.2003 18 to DCP and the complaint dt. 3.11.2003 to the SHO, P.S. Vasant Vihar as Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 respectively. He has also proved the legal notice dt. 20.10.2003 as Ex.PW1/7.
15.. On the other hand, the defendant has examined himself as DW-1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein it has been stated that he let out the basement of the premises bearing no.C-7/3 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to the plaintiff on lease for a period of three years commencing from 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2005 vide lease agreement dt. 4.9.2002. DW-1 stated that as per clause -5 of the lease deed the plaintiff had an option to terminate the lease at any point of time by giving three months prior notice in writing to the defendant, however no notice for premature termination of the lease was given by the plaintiff and he stated that the alleged notice of termination dt. 13.7.2003 is false. He further stated that the plaintiff by not giving three months prior notice in 19 writing has violated the clause-5 of the lease agreement and hence the plaintiff is also liable to pay the rent in lieu of the notice period and thereafter till 21.1.2004, when the possession was handedover to him by the plaintiff
16. In the present case ,the suit premises was let out by the defendant to the plaintiff for a period of three years commencing from 1.7.2002 to30.6.2005 vide lease agreement dt. 4.9.2002(Ex. PW1 /3 ) .
The execution of the aforesaid lease deed (Ex.PW-1/3) is not disputed by the parties.
The relevant portion of Clause-5 of the aforesaid lease deed (Ex.PW1/3) reads as under :-
" The lessee has the option to terminate the lease anytime by giving three months prior notice in writing to the lessor. In case the Lessee desires to vacate the premises she is 20 entitled to do so after giving three months notice in writing " .
In view of the aforesaid clause-5 of the lease deed (Ex. PW1/3), it is clear that the lessee i.e. the plaintiff herein had the option to terminate the lease deed at any time by giving three months prior notice in writing to the lessor i.e. defendant herein. It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the said prior notice of three months was duly given by the plaintiff to the defendant on 13.7.2003 in writing and the PW-1 has proved the said notice dt. 13.7.2003 as Ex.PW1/4.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid notice dt. 13.7.2003(Ex. PW-1/4), reads as under:-
"I, S.A Siddiqui on behalf of Mrs. M.Kanoria India exchange Place,Kolkata inform you that Mr.M.Kanoria have decided to vacate C-7/3 Basement. As per terms of lease agreement to vacate the Basement, 3 months prior notice is 21 required from the day 13th July2003, the notice period of 3 months will be complete on 12th October 2003.Please note that we will vacate the place by removing all belongings at C-7/3 Basement & will handed over to you latest by 12th October 2003. After the expiry of the 12th October. We will not be liable to pay any rent and no penalty charges be imposed on us.
Also please arrange to refund the Security amount Rs. 2,40,000 ( 2 lacs, fourty thousand ) lying with you as refindable security amount which were paid by D D No. 038556 dt. 01.08.2002 favouring yourself drawn onP.N.Bank,C.Place, New Delhi ".
It has been stated by PW-1 that the aforesaid notice Ex.PW1/4 was personally served by him upon the defendant and in acknowledgment of the said receipt, the defendant has signed the said notice at point-A. On the other hand, the defendant has denied his signature on 22 the aforesaid notice and has stated that he has never received the said termination notice dt. 13.10.2003.
The perusal of the record shows that as per clause-5 of the lease deed Ex.PW1/3 the lessee i.e. plaintiff herein had the option to terminate the said deed at any time by giving three months prior notice in writing to the lessor i.e. defendant herein and the requisite notice dt. 13.10.2003 ( Ex.PW1/4) for termination of tenancy was given by the plaintiff to the defendant. PW-1 stated that he has personally served the aforesaid notice upon the defendant and in acknowledgment of the receipt of the said notice, the defendant has signed at point A on the aforesaid notice Ex.PW1/4. The defendant has denied his signatures on the aforesaid notice Ex.PW1/4, however the aforesaid denial made by the defendant does not inspire the confidence as perusal of the signature at point A on the aforesaid notice Ex.PW1/4 and on the admitted documents Ex.P1 to P-7 shows that all these documents have been signed 23 by the same person. The important fact is that the aforesaid documents Ex.P-1 to P-7 have been admitted by the defendant and the defendant has also not denied his signatures on the said document. Infact, in his cross examination the defendant has admitted that the said receipts bears his signature.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the notice/letter dt. 13.7.2003 ( Ex.PW1/4) regarding termination of tenancy of the plaintiff was duly served upon the defendant and as such the defendant is not entitled to the rent for the notice period and further the defendant will also not be entitled to the rent for the period from the date of expiry of period of notice i.e.12.10.2003 to 21.01.2004 as has been claimed by the defendant in his counter claim.
The perusal of the record shows that the rent for the notice 24 period i.e. for the month of July 2003,August 2003 and September 2003 have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant vide receipt Ex. P-4 to P- 2 respectively. Further, from the material on record it appears that the plaintiff has not paid the rent in respect of the suit premises for the period from 1.10.2003 to 12.10.2003 i.e. date of the expiry of period of notice. The rate of rent in respect of suit premises was admittedly Rs. 45,000/- p.m and as such the plaintiff will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the defendant towards rent for the corresponding period from 1.10.2003 to 12.10.2003.
In the counter claim the defendant has also claimed the recovery of electricity and water charges for the notice period and from the perusal of the record it appears that the plaintiff has not made any payment towards electricity and water charges for the period from 4.7.2003 to 12.10.2003 to the defendant and as such the plaintiff is liable to pay the said electric and water charges to the defendant for the 25 aforesaid period. In the counter claim, the defendant has claimed electricity charges to the tune of Rs. 7,538/- and water charges to the tune of Rs. 2,680/- for the period from 4.7.2003 to 21.1.2004 but the defendant will be entitled to receive the aforesaid electricity and water charges only for the period from 4.7.2003 to 12.10.2003 i.e up to the date of expiry of period of notice. From the material on record, it appears that the electricity and water charges for the aforesaid period have not been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. In these circumstances the defendant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3770/- towards electricity charges and he will also be entitled to the water charges amounting to Rs. 1340/- for the aforesaid period. The aforesaid amounts of Rs. 3770/- and Rs. 1340/- have been tentatively calculated on the basis of the aforesaid electricity and water charges for the approximately six months claimed by the defendant in the counter claim .
26
Hence, in view of the above, Issue no.1 in the suit and Issue no. 2, 3 and 4 as regard counter claim are decided accordingly.
17. ISSUES NO.-2 TO 5 IN THE SUIT AND ISSUE NO.1 AND 5 AS REGARD COUNTER CLAIM Issue no. 2 to 5 in the suit and issue no.1 and 5 as regard counter claim are taken up together as these Issues are interconnected and have to be decided on the basis of the same evidence..
The onus to prove issues no.2 in the main suit and Issues no.1 &5 as regard counter claim was upon the defendant and in order to discharge his onus, the defendant has examined himself as DW-1 and filed the evidence by way of affidavit wherein it has been stated that he let out the suit premises to the plaintiff on lease for a period of three years vide lease agreement dt. 4.9.2002.He further stated that in terms of the lease agreement, the plaintiff was not authorised / entitled to make any structural addition or alternation in the premises without his prior written consent/permission. He further stated that the plaintiff did not 27 obtain the written consent/permission to carryout the addition/alteration/construction of bathroom in the suit premises. DW-1 stated that in terms of clause-12 of the lease agreement, the plaintiff had to use the leased premises as per the prevailing laws, rules and regulations, however the plaintiff violated the same as no sanction or required permission was obtained from the competent authority before carrying out the addition/alteration/construction in the leased premises nor he took permission from him. DW-1 further stated that he issued a legal notice dt. 13.10.2003 wherein he specifically pointed out that the plaintiff has made several major additions and alterations in the premises without the prior written consent in utter disregard, violation and contravention of clause 8 and 9 of the lease agreement and the said notice was duly served upon the plaintiff. He has proved the copy of the legal notice dt.13.10.2003 and the postal receipt and AD card in respect of the said notice as Ex. DW1/A to Ex. DW1/C respectively. 28
On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that it was specifically brought to the notice of the defendant that the plaintiff was desirous to run the business of beauty parlour from the premises and for the purpose of running the said business some additions and alterations byway of raising two bath rooms in the basement alongwith requisite sanitation and sewage facility was required in the suit premises and accordingly the plaintiff has requested the defendant to carry out the said additions and alterations and the defendant specifically agreed for the said additions and alterations and had accorded his consent. PW-1 stated that he himself has written a letter dt. 29.8.2002 to the defendant for sanctioning the additions and alterations in the suit premises and the said letter of thanks was countersigned by the defendant thereby permitting in writing to the plaintiff to make additions a or alterations. PW-1 has proved the said letter as Ex.PW1/2.
29
18. In the present case it has been submitted on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was not authorised/entitled to make structural addition or alternation in the suit premises without his prior written consent/permission. It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the consent/permission of the defendant to carry out the addition/alteration/construction in the suit premises was taken and the said consent/permission was duly given by the defendant as is evident from the letter Ex. PW1/2.
The defendant has stated that no such written consent/permission to carry out the addition/alteration/construction of
bath room in the suit premises was given by him, however the aforesaid contention put forward on behalf of the defendant does not hold water as the aforesaid letter Ex.PW1/2 bears the signature of the defendant at point A and the said letter Ex.PW1/2 specifically refers to the 30 discussions held at the residence of the defendant regarding the construction of two new bath room in the suit premises and it also mention about the consent given by the defendant to construct the same by the plaintiff. The defendant has denied his signature on the aforesaid letter Ex.PW1/2, however the aforesaid denial made by the defendant is not of any help to the defendant as the perusal of the signature on Ex.PW1/2 and the perusal of the admitted signatures of the defendant on the documents Ex.P1 to P-7 shows that the signatures on the aforesaid documents are similar which implies that all these documents have been signed by the same person.
Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the lease agreement by effecting the aforesaid structural changes in the suit premises as the plaintiff was having the consent of the defendant to 31 carry out the aforesaid structural changes as is evident from the letter Ex.PW1/2. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the defendant is not entitled to any damages as the plaintiff has not caused any damage to the suit property and the structural changes were carried out in the suit premises by the plaintiff with the consent of the defendant as is evident from the letter Ex.PW1/2 In the present case the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,47,200/- being the security amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- and the interest thereupon w.e.f. 13.10.2003. The perusal of the record shows that the aforesaid security amount of Rs. 2.4 lacs was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in lieu of the lease executed between the parties in respect of the suit premises. The payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2.4 lacs as security is also evident from the document Ex. P-1 and the said document have been admitted by the defendant. Further as per the terms of the lease deed (ExPW1/3) the aforesaid security amount of Rs. 2.4 lacs 32 was refundable to the plaintiff on the termination of the lease agreement between the parties for any reason whatsoever, however as per the aforesaid agreement, the defendant (lessor ) was entitled to deduct from the said security amount, any amount as may be payable by the plaintiff ( lessee) to the defendant (lessor) under the lease deed.
In view of the above, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the security amount of Rs. 2.4 lacs from the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant is also entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards the rent for the corresponding period from 1.10.2003 to 12.10.2003 and the amounts of Rs. 3770/- and Rs. 1340/- towards electricity and water charges are also due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant under the aforesaid lease deed (Ex.PW1/3) and as such the total amount deductible by the defendant comes to Rs. 23,110/-.
Hence, the defendant will be entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 23,110/- from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2..4 lacs as per terms and 33 condition specified in the lease deed (Ex.PW1/3). Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,16,890/- from the defendant.
In addition to above, the plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs. 22,500/- being the amount of watch and ward charges, however keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any watch and ward charges in the present suit as no such charges were payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the lease deed (Ex.PW1/3) or by any other document.
Further, the plaintiff has also claimed pendentelite and future interest @ 24% p.a. on the aforesaid security amount, however in view of the general decline in the rate of interest in the recent times, the said rate of interest appears to be on the higher side. In these circumstances and in view of the provisions of section-34 of CPC, I am of the 34 considered opinion that it will be expedient in the interest of justice to grant interest @ 6% p.a. upon the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,16,890/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
Hence, in view of the above, Issues no. 2 to 5 in the suit and Issue no.1&5 as regard counter claim are decided accordingly.
19. RELIEF In view of my findings on the aforesaid Issues no. 1 to 5 in the suit and Issues no.1 to 5 as regard counter claim, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,16,890/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till realization and proportionate cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
35
(Announced in the open) (PARAMJIT SINGH)
(court on 26.3.2007) Addl. District Judge Delhi
26.3.2007