Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: lease seepage in Smt. Meeta Vij vs Sh. Ravindra S. Singhvi on 27 March, 2025Matching Fragments
76. Although, the formal admission/denial of documents was not carried out by the parties, the receipt of legal notice was not denied by the defendant concerned. The defendant no.3 admitted in terms that the defendant no.3 was permitted to make temporary additions and alterations in the premises in accordance with requirements of defendant no.3 to run its business. Defendant no.3 further claimed that it was the defendant no.1 who had to carry out repairs for leakage on roof, seepage of walls, external wiring etc. as per the lease executed between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3.
103. Therefore, to my mind, the plaintiff has miserably failed to show any loss of rent on account of alleged damage. Rather the claim that, the lease for reduced rent was entered into, because of seepage, is belied by the plaintiff's admissions made in the cross examination that the sister company of the original lessee was inducted as a tenant alongwith the original lessee for tax reasons and that rent was agreed to be increased by 5% per annum w.e.f. 01.12.2012 and 16% from 01.06.2014 and the component of service tax of 10% was to be paid additionally over and above the rent, which covenant was not part of the original lease. Therefore, the claim A and B is liable to be rejected, as neither reduction of rent, nor expenses of execution of fresh lease can be attributable to the alleged damage by seepage.
104. There is another way of looking at the matter. The fresh lease deed does not record that rent was being reduced on account of seepage or damage to the property because of any renovation by the occupiers of the ground floor. The tenant was never called as a witness to prove the circumstances which led to execution of a fresh lease, alleged reduction of rent and the reasons thereof and the reasons for inducting the sister concern and the introduction of element of service tax. The plaintiff cannot take advantage of these facts in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the tenant. Any subsequent document cannot be read to justify the reasons for execution of fresh lease between the plaintiff and the tenant.